This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Securities
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

In re Bridgepoint Education Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation

Published: Nov. 15, 2014 | Result Date: Oct. 17, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:13-cv-02947-JM-JLB Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

James H. Miller

Eric L. Zagar
(Kessler, Topaz, Meltzer & Check LLP)


Defendant

Sameer Advani

John F. Cannon

Nina F. Locker
(Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati PC)

Tariq Mundiya

Justin Klaeb


Facts

Shareholders filed a derivative action against Bridgepoint Education Inc. and members of its Board of Directors, including Andrew Clark, Ryan Craig, Dale Crandall, Marye Fox, Patrick Hackett, Robert Hartman, and Ardash Sarma, as well as the company's controlling stockholder, Warburg Puncus Private Equity VII LP and its affiliates.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants' decision to approve a self-tender offer harmed stockholders. Plaintiffs alleged that the timing and pricing demonstrated that the self-tender offer was a sham, and was intended only to benefit the company's controlling stockholder, Warburg and the individual defendants at the expense of the company. Plaintiffs also alleged, among others, that offer to purchase failed to disclose material information. Moreover, plaintiffs alleged that the per share tender offer price was grossly excessive and represented a substantial and unjustifiable premium to the company's public traded stock price.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The individual defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to first demand action from the corporation's directors, as required under the rules of civil procedure.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, but allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Dec. 9, 2013.


#86158

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390