HearUSA Inc.
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
HearUSA Inc. Securities Settlement
The lawsuit was settled for $3.6 million in cash on July 9, 2014. The following is a summary of the proceedings in this lawsuit: ‘On January 18, 2012, Plaintiff MTB Investment Partners, LP through its attorneys, Hausfeld LLP, filed the Action, on its own behalf and on behalf of the Class in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged violations of federal securities laws against SHI, alleging that SHI violated Sections 9(a)(2), 10, and 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; On February 19, 2013, the Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part Defendant SHI motion to dismiss the Action; SHI would assert a number of defenses to Lead Plaintiff claims if the Action proceeded further; SHI has denied and continues to deny, inter alia, the allegations that it made any material misstatements or omissions; that any member of the Class has suffered damages; that the price of HearUSA Common Stock was unlawfully suppressed by reason of the alleged misrepresentations, omissions, or otherwise; that the members of the Class were harmed by the conduct alleged in this Action; that Defendant knew or was reckless with respect to the alleged misconduct; and that it has violated the federal securities laws or any laws; SHI has, after taking into account the uncertainty, risks, and costs inherent in any litigation, concluded that further conduct of this Action could be protracted and distracting and determined that it is desirable and beneficial to it that this Action be settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Stipulation; Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel believe that the claims asserted in this Action have merit, but recognize that expense and length of continued proceedings necessary, and uncertainty associated with any litigation, combined with the benefits of this Settlement render the Settlement in the best interests of the Class; and after arm length negotiations, counsel for the parties reached an agreement-in-principle concerning the proposed settlement of the Action in its entirety, and Lead Plaintiff Liaison Counsel so advised the Court in a letter dated September 18, 2013.’