According to the Complaint, it is alleged Defendants have violated Sections of the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading joint proxy statement/prospectus/information statement (the "Proxy") to be filed with the SEC and disseminated to Jaguar shareholders. The Proxy recommends that Jaguar shareholders vote in favor of a Proposed Merger whereby Jaguar, in an all-stock transaction, will acquire Napo, with Jaguar continuing as the surviving entity (the "Proposed Merger").

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's end-user demand, channel inventory, and growth prospects for its high-margin supplies business. Lexmark is a manufacturer of printers and related supplies, primarily ink cartridges. Lexmark sells its products to wholesale distributors and large retail chains in more than 90 countries around the world.

According to the law firm press release, HD Supply is one of the largest industrial distributors in North America. The Company provides a broad range of products and services to approximately 500,000 professional customers in the maintenance, repair and operations, infrastructure and power and specialty construction sectors. The Company is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices in Atlanta, Georgia.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) consultation obligations relating to the permitting of the Escobal mining license were not met; (2) in turn, the Escobal mining license is subject to suspension; and (3) as a result, Tahoe's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendant had engaged in illegal conduct in connection with the Bezeq-YES Merger; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would subject B Communications and/or Bezeq to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, B Communications' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

According to the law firm press release, Axiom Holdings, Inc. is an independent power producer and real estate developer that develops, builds, owns & operates power generation plants and hotels. Axiom continues to leverage its global partnerships with real estate owners and hydropower developers and expand its asset portfolio through acquisition and development of identified pipeline.

The Complaint alleges as follows: On June 16, 2017, Bloomberg reported that a former CenturyLink employee claimed she was fired for blowing the whistle on the Company's high-pressure sales culture that allegedly left customers paying millions of dollars for accounts they didn't request. Bloomberg further reported that the complaint alleged that the Company allowed persons who had a personal incentive to add services or lines to customer accounts to falsely indicate on the CenturyLink system the approval by a customer of new lines or services. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.23 per share, or nearly 5%, to close at $25.72 per share on June 16, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume.

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, FleetCor misled investors with regard to the sources of and reasons for its earnings and growth. The Complaint also alleges that FleetCor falsely stated that the Company discloses its fees to customers clearly and that it focuses its business on helping employers control spending and save money. In truth, the Company owes its ostensible success to overcharging customers, disseminating misleading marketing materials, and engaging in predatory sales practices. In addition, FleetCor's contracts did not clearly disclose the Company's fees and FleetCor's improper business practices did not help customers control spending or save money.

According to the law firm press release, Snap Inc. is a camera company that provides technology and social media services. The Company develops mobile camera application products and services that allow users to send and receive photos, drawings, text, and videos. Snap serves customers worldwide.

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, U.S. Steel made materially false and misleading statements regarding its outlook and expected financial performance. The complaint alleges that the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) While the Company was implementing its Carnegie Way program, it was focused on cutting costs and was not making investments necessary to position U.S. Steel so that it could respond to improved market conditions; (b) Defendants' failure to invest in improving capital assets during the industry downturn, in order to report apparent financial improvements, meant that U.S. Steel had higher production costs than its competitors, even in the face of improved pricing, which would negatively impact its financial results; (c) Defendants were forestalling expensive capital equipment upgrades in order to boost the Company's short-term financial results at the expense of long-term financial performance, leaving U.S. Steel in need of accelerated, costly equipment upgrades that would leave the Company years away from generating improved financial performance; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements regarding the Company's outlook and expected financial performance were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis when made. The complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' false statements and material omissions, U.S. Steel stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and that after the above revelations were revealed to the market, the price of U.S. Steel stock declined significantly as the artificial inflation was removed.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Synchronoss would not be able to meet revenue guidance provided to investors; (2) as such, Synchronoss would need to revise its prior guidance; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Synchronoss's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

According to the law firm press release, BofI Holding, Inc. operates as the holding company for Bank of Internet USA. The Bank provides consumer and business banking products in the United States.

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that defendants caused the Company to issue false and misleading statements and/or fail to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the science behind AUGMENT had not been scientifically validated; (2) the Company was unable to achieve the purported success rates it claimed; (3) the reasons why the Company moved its studies outside of the United States; and (4) that at all relevant times, the Company’s profitability and prospects were false and misleading.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a large customer of BioAmber that was expected to purchase $2.8 million of succinic acid in Q4 2016 experienced a technical problem in its manufacturing facility and postponed the order to 2017; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about BioAmber's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) between 2010 and 2013, Homex overstated its revenue by 355% or roughly $3.3 billion by reporting fictitious sales of more than 100,000 homes; (2) between 2010 and 2013, Homex overstated the number of units it sold by over 100,000 units or 317% of actual units sold; (3) Homex and certain of its Headquarters Financial Reporting Personnel knowingly and intentionally engaged in a scheme to materially overstate Homex's revenues, homes sold, and other related financial items; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Homex's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Defendant had donated funds through nonprofit organizations to the University of Utah for the purpose of funneling those funds back into NantHealth; (2) that, as such, the Company and Defendant participated in the violation of federal tax laws—exposing the Company to possible civil and criminal liability; (3) that the Company improperly recorded orders received from the University of Utah as GPS Cancer test orders; (4) that, as a result, the Company reported false and inflated GPS Cancer order figures for the third quarter of 2016; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and Defendants' statements about NantHealth's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading.

According to the law firm press release, CB&I provides a range of services to customers in the energy infrastructure market throughout the world. Between 2000 and 2012, CB&I completed a series of acquisitions that expanded the Company's capabilities and services. One acquisition – that of The Shaw Group, Inc. ("Shaw") – was announced in July 2012 and completed in February 2013. Through the acquisition of Shaw, the Company acquired contracts to complete construction of two new nuclear power plants in Waynesboro, Georgia and Jenkinsville, South Carolina (the "Nuclear Projects").

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Graña y Montero was aware that its Brazilian partner Odebrecht S.A. paid bribes to former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo to win construction work on a road traveling from Peru to Brazil; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Graña y Montero's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On February 24, 2017, Reuters published an article highlighting a report that Graña y Montero knew about $20 million in bribes paid to former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo by its partner Odebrecht. On this news, shares of Graña y Montero fell $1.77 per share or over 34% to close $3.32 per share on February 24, 2017.

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sito's growth of bookings would not propel the Company's fourth fiscal quarter 2016 media placement revenues and revenue growth to the level represented during the Class Period; (ii) Sito was aware that the election would impact the Company's fourth fiscal quarter 2016 revenue, (iii) clients' campaign spending and media placement revenues in the fourth quarter 2016 was highly dependent on the elections; (iv) the Company's growth in media placement revenues would not occur in the fourth fiscal quarter 2016; (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements, as well as Defendants' statements about Sito's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

According to the Complaint, this action arises out of a stock and cash transaction by which South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., through its subsidiaries Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Silk Delaware, Inc. ("Merger Sub," collectively with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., "Samsung") will acquire each issued and outstanding share of Harman for $112.00 per share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction" or "Merger"). Both companies' boards of directors have approved the deal.