Canfield v. Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Not set For more information Inc. yet write to: Plaintiffs claim that Statoil underpaid Douglas A. Clark Royalties relating to gas produced from wells The Clark Law Firm, P.C. located in Pennsylvania pursuant to certain 1563 Main Street provisions of oil and gas leases. The Action Peckville, PA 18452 alleges that Statoil inappropriately used an Index Pricing Methodology on which to base its Francis P. Royalty payments rather than a Resale Price. Robbins Geller Rudman Plaintiffs sought monetary damages and & Dowd LLP prejudgment interest. 58 South Service Road Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 4-5-2018 17-CV-00155 (D. Colo.) Amedee v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al. Not set For more information Re Defendants: Jeff K. Storey, James O. Ellis, yet write or call: Jr., Kevin P. Chilton, Steven T. Clontz, Irene M. Esteves, T. Michael Glenn, Spencer B. Hays, Richard A. Acocelli WEISSLAW LLP Michael Mahoney, Kevin W. Mooney, Peter 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor Seahlimhuat and Peter VanOppen (collectively, New York, NY 10036 “Defendants”) 212 628-3025 (Ph.) Plaintiff alleges that Level 3 and the Director Defendants violated Sections 14(a) Donald J. Enright and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder 1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 115 because the Preliminary Proxy failed to Washington, DC 20007 disclose material information relating to the proposed transaction. Plaintiff’s complaint 202 524-4290 (Ph.) (the sought, among other things, “Complaint”) injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, and other forms of equitable relief. 4-5-2018 11-CV-5450 (S.D.N.Y.)
Canfield v. Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc. Plaintiffs claim that Statoil underpaid Royalties relating to gas produced from wells located in Pennsylvania pursuant to certain provisions of oil and gas leases. The Action alleges that Statoil inappropriately used an Index Pricing Methodology on which to base its Royalty payments rather than a Resale Price. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages and prejudgment interest. Not set yet For more information write to: Douglas A. Clark The Clark Law Firm, P.C. 1563 Main Street Peckville, PA 18452 Francis P. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 58 South Service Road Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 4-5-2018 17-CV-00155 (D. Colo.) Amedee v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al. Re Defendants: Jeff K. Storey, James O. Ellis, Jr., Kevin P. Chilton, Steven T. Clontz, Irene M. Esteves, T. Michael Glenn, Spencer B. Hays, Michael Mahoney, Kevin W. Mooney, Peter Seahlimhuat and Peter VanOppen (collectively, “Defendants”) Plaintiff alleges that Level 3 and the Director Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder because the Preliminary Proxy failed to disclose material information relating to the proposed transaction. Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) sought, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, and other forms of equitable relief. Not set yet For more information write or call: Richard A. Acocelli WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 212 628-3025 (Ph.) Donald J. Enright LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 202 524-4290 (Ph.) 4-5-2018 11-CV-5450 (S.D.N.Y.)
CAFA-Notice-April-2018.docx