substantially identical allegations as the Schwartz complaint, were filed on behalf of nominal defendant Holdings by Trustees of the St. Clair County Employees’ Retirement System and Mr. Mehmet Ali Albayrak in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in actions captioned Martin, et al. v. Reid-Anderson, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00311-P (N.D. Tex.) and Albayrak v. Reid-Anderson, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00312-P (N.D. Tex.), respectively. On April 8, 2020, plaintiffs in all 3 of these putative derivative actions moved to consolidate the 3 actions and to appoint lead counsel. On May 8, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate. The consolidated action is captioned In re Six Flags Entertainment Corporation Derivative Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-00262-P (N.D. Tex.). On August 10, 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative complaint. The consolidated derivative complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, insider selling, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and contribution for violations of federal securities laws. The consolidated derivative complaint references, and makes many of the same allegations, as are set forth in the Electrical Workers litigation, alleging, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties, committed waste, are liable for contribution for, or were unjustly enriched by making, failing to correct, or failing to implement adequate internal controls relating to alleged materially false or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company’s business, operations and growth prospects, specifically with respect to the prospects of the development of its Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd. The consolidated derivative complaint also alleges that a former officer and director sold shares of the Company while allegedly in possession of material non-public information concerning the same. On September 9, 2020, Holdings and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On April 28, 2021, the court granted defendants’ motion, dismissing the consolidated complaint in its entirety and with prejudice and denying leave to amend. We believe that these complaints are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. However, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits.
On May 5, 2020, a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed on behalf of nominal defendant Holdings, by Mr. Richard Francisco in the District Court for Dallas County, Texas, 160th Judicial District, against certain of its current and former executive officers and directors (the “individual defendants”) in an action captioned Francisco v. Reid-Anderson, et al., Case No. DC-20-06425 (160th Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., Tex.) (the “Francisco action”). The petition in the Francisco action alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The petition in the Francisco action references, and makes many of the same allegations, as are set forth in the Electrical Workers litigation, alleging, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched by, abused their control, committed gross mismanagement, and committed waste by making, failing to correct, or failing to implement adequate internal controls relating to alleged materially false or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company’s business, operations and growth prospects, specifically with respect to the prospects of the development of its Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its partner, Riverside Investment Group Co, Ltd. The petition also alleges that a former officer and director engaged in insider trading. On May 28, 2020, the parties in the Francisco action filed a joint motion to stay proceedings through the resolution of the forthcoming motion to dismiss the Electrical Workers litigation. On June 3, 2020, the court granted the joint motion to stay proceedings. On June 12, 2020, an additional stockholder derivative lawsuit, making substantially identical allegations as the Francisco petition, was filed on behalf of nominal defendant Holdings in the District Court for Dallas County, Texas, 298th Judicial District on behalf of putative stockholder Mr. Cliff Bragdon in an action captioned Bragdon v. Reid-Anderson, et al., Case No. DC-20-08180 (298th Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., Tex.) (the “Bragdon action”). On July 10, 2020, the court granted an agreed motion filed by the parties in the Francisco and Bragdon actions to consolidate cases, to accept service and an unopposed motion to appoint co-lead and liaison counsel, and to stay both the Francisco and Bragdon actions through resolution of the motion to dismiss the Electrical Workers litigation. The consolidated state derivative action is captioned In re Six Flags Entertainment Corp. Derivative Litigation, Case No. DC-20-06425 (160th Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., Tex.). On September 8, 2020, the parties to the consolidated state derivative action filed an agreed motion to transfer the case from Dallas County to Tarrant County, which motion was so ordered on September 27, 2020. The consolidated action is now captioned In re Six Flags Ent. Corp. Deriv. Litig., No. 096-320958-20 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Tarrant Cty.). We believe that these complaints are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. However, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits.
Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuits
On March 8, 2016, certain plaintiffs filed a complaint against one of our subsidiaries in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags New