The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (2011)

Warning: Illegal string offset 'class' in /homepages/43/d258393870/htdocs/liquidclaims/wp-content/themes/min/Minimal/epanel/custom_functions.php on line 61

Warning: Illegal string offset 'alt' in /homepages/43/d258393870/htdocs/liquidclaims/wp-content/themes/min/Minimal/epanel/custom_functions.php on line 62

Warning: Illegal string offset 'title' in /homepages/43/d258393870/htdocs/liquidclaims/wp-content/themes/min/Minimal/epanel/custom_functions.php on line 63

The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. Securities Settlement

The lawsuit was settled for $9 million in cash. The following is a summary of the proceedings in this lawsuit: ‘This Action was commenced on September 9, 2011 with the filing of an initial complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the federal securities laws. On December 8, 2011, by order of the Court, City of New Haven Employees Retirement System and Plumbers and Pipefitters Locals 502 & 633 Pension Trust Fund were appointed as Lead Plaintiffs, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP was appointed Lead Counsel for the Class, and Cohn Lifland Pearlman Hermann & Knopf LLP was appointed as Liaison Counsel by the Court. On March 16, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the Amended Complaint). The Amended Complaint asserts claims under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5) against the Settling Defendants and, in addition, Ronald Marshall, Samuel Martin, Ronald Burkle and The Yucaipa Companies LLC (the Dismissed Defendants). The Settling Defendants and Dismissed Defendants filed two motions to dismiss on June 22, 2012. Lead Plaintiffs opposed the motions. On April 30, 2013, the Court issued an Opinion denying in part and granting in part the motions to dismiss. Specifically, the Court dismissed a portion of the Lead Plaintiffs claims against the Settling Defendants but permitted the Lead Plaintiffs to proceed against the Settling Defendants on certain identified theories of liability, and the Court dismissed all of the Lead Plaintiffs claims against the Dismissed Defendants. The Settling Defendants answered the Amended Complaint on July 2, 2013. The Settling Parties exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on August 29, 2013. The Settling Parties attended a pretrial conference before Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on September 3, 2013, and Judge Falk entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order on September 18, 2013. In accordance with the pretrial schedule, the Settling Parties exchanged initial discovery requests. On November 21, 2013, the Settling Parties attended a mediation session with David Geronemus, Esq. of JAMS, during which the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve the Action.’


© copyright 2015, Liquid Claims. All Rights Reserved.