1 unchanged sentence
On August 30, 2017, Array filed its first amended complaint in the U.S.
−Removed: District Court for the District of New Mexico against Colin Mitchell, Nextracker, Inc., Flextronics International U.S.A., Inc., Marco Garcia, Daniel S.
−Removed: Shugar, and Scott Graybeal (collectively “Defendants”) asserting (among other claims) trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and breach of contract.
−Removed: Defendant Mitchell was formerly an employee of the Company but was hired by Nextracker in violation of his non-compete agreement, and he shared with Nextracker and the other defendants certain of Array’s trade secrets and confidential information in violation of his legal obligations.
−Removed: Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on February 5, 2018 denying the allegations, but did not assert any counterclaims against Array.
−Removed: The case has been vigorously litigated through the close of fact discovery and expert discovery.
−Removed: As of September 1, 2020, the court has ruled on a number of motions, including a dismissal of the Defendants’ unclean hands defense and granting partial summary judgment in favor of Array for breach of contract.
−Removed: As of March 31, 2022, the Court has denied in every material aspect the motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendants.
−Removed: The Court denied, without prejudice, a motion for sanctions filed by Array.
−Removed: The Court has set a trial date for July 18, 2022.
+Added: District Court for the District of New Mexico against Nextracker LLC, Daniel S.
+Added: Shugar, Marco Garcia, Flextronics International U.S.A., Inc., Scott Graybeal and Colin Mitchell (collectively “Defendants”) asserting (among other claims) trade secret
+Added: misappropriation, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and breach of contract.
+Added: On July 15, 2022, the Company settled its claims against Defendants for $42.8 million and the settlement was paid on August 4, 2022.
On May 14, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
2 unchanged sentences
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”).
−Removed: 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
−Removed: period of October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021.
+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.
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.
9 unchanged sentences
On September 21, 2021, the Court in the Plymouth Action appointed a group comprised of institutional investors Plymouth County Retirement Association and Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiff.
−Removed: 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: 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
+Added: 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”).
The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges misstatements and/or omissions in:
3 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: Lead plaintiff responded to that letter on February 23, 2022 disagreeing with the ground for dismissal outlined in the defendants’ initial letter and contending that its Consolidated Amended Complaint should not be dismissed.
+Added: Lead plaintiff responded to that letter on February 23, 2022 disagreeing with the grounds for dismissal outlined in the defendants’ initial letter and contending that its Consolidated Amended Complaint should not be dismissed.
Because the parties could not agree that the Consolidated Amended Complaint was deficient in any respect, the defendants, including the Company, submitted a letter to the Court on March 21, 2022 setting forth the reasons why the Consolidated Amended Complaint should be dismissed and requesting the Court’s leave to file a motion to dismiss.
2 unchanged sentences
However, the results of any current or future litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and, regardless of the outcome, we may incur significant costs and experience a diversion of management resources as a result of litigation.
−Removed: There were no material changes to the risk factors disclosed in Part I, Item 1A, in our 2021 Form 10-K.
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.