3 unchanged sentences
On June 21, 2017, Well Thrive Ltd.
−Removed: (“Well Thrive”) filed a complaint against SemiLEDs Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
−Removed: The complaint alleges that Well Thrive is entitled to return of $500 thousand paid toward a note purchase pursuant to a purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) effective July 6, 2016 with Dr.
+Added: (“Well Thrive”) filed a complaint against SemiLEDs Corporation (“the Company”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
+Added: The complaint alleged that Well Thrive was entitled to return of $500 thousand paid toward a note purchase pursuant to a purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) effective July 6, 2016 with Dr.
Peter Chiou, which was assigned to Well Thrive on August 4, 2016.
−Removed: Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, we have retained the $500 thousand payment as liquidated damages.
−Removed: Well Thrive alleges that the liquidated damages provision is unenforceable as an illegal penalty and does not reflect the amount of purported damages.
+Added: Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, we retained the $500 thousand payment as liquidated damages.
+Added: Well Thrive alleged that the liquidated damages provision was unenforceable as an illegal penalty and did not reflect the amount of purported damages.
On March 13, 2018, we filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement between the parties to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.
2 unchanged sentences
Chiou had authority from Well Thrive to settle this case.
−Removed: The judge’s order allowed us to conduct depositions of Well Thrive’s former lawyer, Dr.
−Removed: Chiou, and Mr.
−Removed: Chang Sheng-Chun, Well Thrive’s director, and to request documents relating to the issues surrounding the settlement.
−Removed: Based on this order, we arranged the depositions to obtain more evidence in support of a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.
−Removed: On October 25, 2019, Well Thrive filed a motion to modify the Court’s scheduling order and to allow it to file a motion for summary judgment, and we filed an opposition to the motion.
−Removed: On November 13, 2019, the Court denied Well Thrive’s motion.
The Court held a trial on March 2, 2020.
After the trial, the judge ordered both sides to prepare post-trial briefs and proposed findings of fact for the Court to be submitted before end of April 2020.
−Removed: Both sides submitted post-trail briefs and proposed findings of fact on April 30, 2020, and the judge set a hearing for November 18, 2020.
+Added: Both sides submitted post-trial briefs and proposed findings of fact on April 30, 2020.
+Added: On December 21, 2020, the judge, following a hearing , issued her judgment, which ordered the Company to return the $500 thousand to Well Thrive, and required both parties, on or before January 6, 2021, to submit information on the appropriate amount of interest to be added.
+Added: On January 6, 2021, the Company filed a brief arguing that there should not be an award of prejudgment interest and Well Thrive was arguing for the amount of $135,774 in pre-judgement interest.
+Added: On April 8, 2021, the judge issued a ruling requiring the Company to pay pre-judgment interest in the amount of $123,000 to Well Thrive.
+Added: On May 7, 2021, the Court of Appeal issued an order requiring the parties to mediate on June 28, 2021.
+Added: The Company and Well Thrive Ltd.
+Added: entered into an Agreement Regarding Satisfaction of Judgment dated June 14, 2021, as amended on June 16, 2021 and June 21, 2021 (collectively, the “Settlement Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company issued 35,365 shares (the “Shares”) of its common stock to Well Thrive Ltd.
+Added: The Shares were issued to satisfy the amount payable under the Settlement Agreement and, accordingly, no cash proceeds were received by the Company from the issuance of the Shares.
+Added: Except as described above, there was no material pending legal proceedings or claims as of August 31, 2021.
Mine Safety Disclosures
1 unchanged sentence
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.