which also name Lantheus Holdings and Merger Sub as defendants. Three ofnine lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by plaintiffs, with no settlements from, or other agreed obligations by, the respective defendants thereunder.
On November 22, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Johnson v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.1:19-cv-02183, against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. On March 5, 2020, the Johnson Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On November 25, 2019, a second purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Thompson v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.1:19-cv-02194, against Progenics, certain members of the Progenics Board, Lantheus Holdings, and Merger Sub. On March 10, 2020, the Thompson Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On November 26, 2019, a third purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Wang v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.1:19-cv-10936, against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. On December 9, 2019, a fourth purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Michael A. Bernstein IRA v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.2:19-cv-21200, against Progenics, members of the Progenics Board, Lantheus Holdings, and Merger Sub, which is referred to inthe joint proxy statement/prospectus as the Bernstein IRA Action.On April 21, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Bernstein IRA Action, and on May 6, 2020, the Bernstein IRA Action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Civil Action No.1:20-cv-03521. On December 12, 2019, a fifth purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Pill v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.1:19-cv-02268, against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. The purported stockholder voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice and the court closed the case on March 10, 2020. On December 20, 2019, a sixth purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Hess v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.1:19-cv-11683, against Progenics, Progenics’ Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and members of the Progenics Board, which is referred to inthe joint proxy statement/prospectus as the Hess Action.On April 8, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Hess Action. On April 2, 2020, a seventh purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Goldstone v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.1:20-cv-02750, against Progenics, members of the Progenics Board, Lantheus Holdings, and Merger Sub, which is referred to in the joint proxy statement/prospectus as the Goldstone Action. On April 6, 2020, the purported stockholder in the Johnson Action filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Johnson v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, et al., Civil Action No.1:20-cv-02847, against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board, which is referred to in the joint proxy statement/prospectus as the Johnson S.D.N.Y. Action. On April 8, 2020, an eighth purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Krueger v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Civil Action No.1:20-cv-02913, against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board, which is referred to in the joint proxy statement/prospectus as the Krueger Action.
The complaints in the Wang, Bernstein IRA, Hess, Goldstone, Johnson S.D.N.Y., and KruegerActions allege, among other things, that Progenics and the members of the Progenics Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and 17 C.F.R. § 244.100 and Rule14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act, by misstating or omitting certain allegedly material information in the registration statement filed with the SEC on November 12, 2019, the amended registration statement filed with the SEC on March 16, 2020and/or the Schedule 14A proxy statement filed with the SEC on March 19, 2020 related to the merger. The Bernstein IRA Action also alleges that Lantheus Holdings and Merger Sub violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.The Goldstone Action further alleges that the members of the Progenics Board breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, and good faith to the stockholders of Progenics related to the merger, that Progenics, Lantheus Holdings and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty and that Lantheus Holdings and Merger Sub violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaints seek, among other things,
48