4 unchanged sentences
Exicure, Inc.
+Added: et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-0663.
On February 4, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended putative securities class action complaint.
−Removed: The amended complaint alleges that Messrs.
−Removed: Giljohann and Bock made materially false and/or misleading statements related to the Company’s clinical programs purportedly causing losses to investors who acquired Company securities between January 7, 2021 and December 10, 2021.
+Added: The amended complaint alleges that Dr.
+Added: Giljohann and Mr.
+Added: Bock made materially false and/or misleading statements related to the Company’s clinical programs purportedly causing losses to investors who acquired Company securities between January 7, 2021 and December 10, 2021.
The amended complaint does not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and others who acquired the Company’s stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.
−Removed: On February 11, 2022, four members of the putative class moved the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff in the action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
−Removed: Two of those motions were withdrawn on February 25, 2022, and two remain pending.
−Removed: On February 16, 2022, the Court entered an order stating that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the Court enters an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the Court for the filing of a further amended complaint and the timing of defendants’ answer or response.
−Removed: On March 1, 2022, Kapil Puri filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against Messrs.
−Removed: Giljohann and Bock, Jeffrey L.
+Added: On March 20, 2023, the Court issued an Order appointing James Mathew as Lead Plaintiff, and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as Lead Counsel for the purported class.
+Added: The parties are required to submit, within two weeks of that Order, a schedule to the Court governing the filing of a further amended complaint and the timing of defendants’ answer or response.
+Added: On March 1, 2022, Kapil Puri filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against Dr.
+Added: Giljohann and Mr.
+Added: Bock, Jeffrey L.
Cleland, Elizabeth Garofalo, Bosun Hau, Bali Muralidhar, Andrew Sassine, Matthias Schroff, James Sulat and Timothy Walbert, captioned Puri v.
−Removed: Giljohann, et al.
+Added: Giljohann, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-01083.
On March 8, 2022, Yixin Sim filed a similar shareholder derivative lawsuit in the same court against the same individuals, captioned Sim v.
−Removed: Giljohann, et al.
+Added: Giljohann, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-01217.
−Removed: Based on similar factual allegations presented in the Colwell complaint, described above, the Puri and Sim complaints (the “Derivative Complaints”) allege that the defendants caused the Company to issue false and/or misleading statements in its 2021 proxy statement regarding risk oversight, code of conduct, clinical program and compensation matters, among other things, in violation of federal securities law, and committed breaches of fiduciary duties owed under state law.
−Removed: The Derivative Complaints also assert that Messrs.
−Removed: Giljohann and Bock are liable for contribution under the federal securities laws.
−Removed: The Puri complaint further asserts state law claims for unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste.
−Removed: The plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the Derivative Complaints, but seeks restitution for damages to the Company, attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, as well as an order directing that certain proposals for strengthening board oversight be put to a vote of the Company’s shareholders.
+Added: On April 25,2022, Stourbridge Investments LLC filed a similar shareholder derivative lawsuit against the same individuals in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Stourbridge Investments LLC v.
+Added: Exicure, Inc.
+Added: et al., Case No.
+Added: 1:22-cv-00526.
+Added: Based on similar factual allegations presented in the Colwell complaint, described above, the Puri, Sim, and Stourbridge complaints (collectively, the “Derivative Complaints”) allege that the defendants caused the Company to issue false and/or misleading statements in the proxy statement for its 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders regarding risk oversight, code of conduct, clinical program and compensation matters, among other things, in violation of federal securities law, and committed breaches of fiduciary duties.
+Added: The Derivative Complaints also assert that Dr.
+Added: Giljohann and Mr.
+Added: Bock are liable for contribution under the federal securities laws.
+Added: The Puri and Stourbridge complaints further assert state law claims for unjust enrichment, and the Puri complaint additionally asserts state law claims for abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste.
+Added: The plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the Derivative Complaints, but seek restitution for damages to the Company, attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, as well as an order directing that certain proposals for strengthening board oversight be put to a vote of the Company’s shareholders.
+Added: All of the Derivative Cases have been stayed pending a decision on any motion to dismiss that may be filed in the Colwell case.
+Added: In addition, the Stourbridge case has been administratively closed pending the decision on motion to dismiss that may be filed in the Colwell case.
We may also be a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business.
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.