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 former 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 district court granted defendants’ motion, dismissing the consolidated complaint in its entirety and with prejudice and denying leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ time to appeal the judgment dismissing this action in its entirety and with prejudice and denying leave to amend lapsed in May 2021.
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 former 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 district 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 by 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 district 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 final resolution of the motion to dismiss the Electrical Workers litigation. The consolidated state derivative action was 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. Derivative Litigation, No. 096-320958-20 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Tarrant Cty.), and remains stayed.
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 April 20, 2018, a complaint was filed against Holdings and Six Flags Concord, LLC in the Superior Court of Solano County, California, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed adding Park Management Corp. as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges violations of California law governing, among other things, employee overtime, meal and rest breaks, wage statements, and seeks damages in the form of unpaid wages and related penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. In September 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuit, for an immaterial amount, and the court granted preliminary approval on March 30, 2022. A final approval hearing occurred on July 13, 2022, and the granted final approval on August 16, 2022. The settlement administrator will disburse the payments