Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/27/2020 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: February 11, 2020

According to the Complaint, The Habit Restaurants, Inc. is a fast-casual restaurant concept that specializes in preparing fresh, made-to-order chargrilled burgers and sandwiches. The Company has over 270 restaurants, including locations in thirteen states throughout California, Arizona, Utah, New Jersey, Florida, Idaho, Virginia, Nevada, Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and South Carolina, as well as seven international locations.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 6, 2020, pursuant to which The Habit Restaurants, Inc. will be acquired by YUM! Brands, Inc.

On January 5, 2020, Habit’s Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with YUM! Brands. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Habit’s stockholders will receive $14.00 in cash for each share of Habit common stock they own.

On February 4, 2020, Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on March 27, 2020.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Restaurants
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HABT
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: D. Delaware
DOCKET #: 20-CV-00203
JUDGE: Hon.Richard G. Andrews
DATE FILED: 02/11/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/06/2020
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/11/2020
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. (Wilmington)
  2. RM Law, P.C. (Berwyn)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available