Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 09/28/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: April 15, 2019

According to the Complaint, Taronis purportedly operates as an energy company that offers technology solutions to create, process, and produce hydrogen-based fuel through the gasification of carb-rich liquids. Taronis formerly operated under the name of MagneGas Applied Technology Solutions, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not have a contract with the City of San Diego; (2) the Company or its management had engaged in a scheme to defraud; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 21, 2019, the case was transferred to the District of Arizona under Docket 19-CV-04529.

On July 10, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on August 30. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on October 14. On April 8, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On June 10, the parties voluntarily dismissed the Company Issuer. On August 11, the parties notified the Court that they had reached a Settlement in principle. On September 24, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Energy
Industry: Alternative Energy
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TRNX
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: M.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 19-CV-00889
JUDGE: Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell
DATE FILED: 04/15/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/28/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/12/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Tomchin & Odom, PA
  2. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Arizona
DOCKET #: 19-CV-04529
JUDGE: Hon. Charlene Edwards Honeywell
DATE FILED: 08/30/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/28/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/12/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Johnson Fistel, LLP (Marietta)
  2. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available