8 unchanged sentences
As of December 31, 2021, the Court has denied in every material aspect the motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendants.
−Removed: The Court has yet to rule on a motion for sanctions filed by Array.
−Removed: We anticipate that once the court has ruled on all of the pending motions, and the court procedures allow for jury trials to resume, it will set a trial date.
+Added: The Court denied without prejudice a motion for sanctions filed by Array.
+Added: The Court has set a trial date for July 18, 2022.
+Added: On May 14, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
+Added: District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (“Plymouth Action”).
+Added: The Plymouth Action alleges misstatements and/or omissions in the Company’s registration statements and prospectuses related to the Company’s October 2020 initial public offering (the “IPO”), the Company’s December 2020 follow-on offering (the “2020 Follow-On Offering”), and the Company’s March 2021 follow-on offering (the “2021 Follow-On Offering”) during the putative class period of October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021.
+Added: On June 30, 2021, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (“Keippel Action”).
+Added: The Keippel Action similarly alleged misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company’s registration statements and prospectuses related to the Company’s IPO, the Company’s 2020 Follow-On Offering, and the Company’s 2021 Follow-On Offering during the putative class period of October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021.
+Added: On July 6, 2021, the Court entered an order that the Keippel Action was in all material respects substantially similar to the Plymouth Action, that both actions arise out of the same or similar operative facts, and that the parties are substantially the same parties.
+Added: The Court accordingly consolidated the Keippel Action with the Plymouth Action for all pretrial purposes and ordered all filings to be made in the Plymouth Action.
+Added: On July 16, 2021, a verified derivative complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York against certain officers and directors of the Company (“First Derivative Action”).
+Added: The complaint alleges:
+Added: (1) violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for misleading proxy statements, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) abuse of control, (5) gross mismanagement, (6) corporate waste, (7) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and (8) contribution under sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
+Added: On July 30, 2021, a second and related verified derivative complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York against certain officers and directors of the Company (“Second Derivative Action”).
+Added: The complaint alleges:
+Added: (1) violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for causing the issuance of a false/misleading proxy statement, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.
+Added: On August 24, 2021, the Second Derivative Action was consolidated with the First Derivative Action, the Court appointed co-lead counsel, and the case was temporarily stayed pending the entry of an order on all motions to dismiss directed at the pleadings filed in the Plymouth Action.
+Added: The stay shall remain in effect until the later of (a) the entry of an order on any motions to dismiss the Plymouth Action or, (b) to the extent the complaint in the Plymouth Action is amended, the entry of an order on any motions to dismiss any such amended complaints in the Plymouth Action.
+Added: On September 21, 2021, the Court appointed a group comprised of institutional investors Plymouth County Retirement Association and Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiff in the Plymouth Action.
+Added: The deadline for the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint in the Plymouth action was originally November 19, 2021, but was subsequently extended by agreement of the parties and further order of the Court.
+Added: On December 7, 2021, an amended class action complaint was filed by lead plaintiff in the Plymouth Action against the Company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during the period from October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021 (the “Consolidated Amended Complaint”).
+Added: The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges misstatements and/or omissions in:
+Added: (1) certain of the Company’s registration statements and prospectuses related to the Company’s IPO, the Company’s 2020 Follow-On Offering, and the Company’s 2021 Follow-On Offering;
+Added: (2) in the Company’s annual report and associated press release announcing results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2020;
+Added: and (3) in the Company’s November 5, 2020 and March 9, 2021 earnings calls.
+Added: Consistent with the individual rules of practice for the Court in the Plymouth Action, on January 24, 2022, the defendants in the Plymouth Action, including the Company and certain of its officers and directors named as defendants therein, served on lead plaintiff and the Court a letter outlining why the Consolidated Amended Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
+Added: Lead plaintiff must respond to that letter on or before February 23, 2022, stating the extent, if any, to which lead plaintiff concurs with the defendants’ objections and the
+Added: amendments, if any, to be made to the Consolidated Amended Complaint to address them, or else stating the reasons and controlling authority that lead plaintiff asserts supports the Consolidated Amended Complaint.
+Added: If, as a result of this exchange of letters, the parties have failed to resolve their dispute about the sufficiency of the Consolidated Amended Complaint, then, on or before March 21, 2022, defendants must submit a letter to the Court setting forth the reason why a motion dismiss is warranted.
From time to time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations and businesses that cover a wide range of matters, including, among others, intellectual property matters, contract and employment claims, personal injury claims, product liability claims and warranty claims.
4 unchanged sentences
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.