Donoghue v. Antara Capital Master Fund LP
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-04985
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Donoghue v. Antara Capital Master Fund LP, Judge Rearden granted the parties’ request to stay case deadlines while they prepared settlement papers.
The plaintiffs, AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., and the defendants were affected because the court paused the case deadlines, including the deadline to answer the First Amended Complaint.
What happened
Donoghue v. Antara Capital Master Fund LP is a stockholder lawsuit brought under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The filing said the parties had agreed to settle claims seeking recovery of alleged short-swing trading profits.
The parties asked the court to pause all deadlines while they prepared settlement documents and a future request for settlement approval, notice to AMC securityholders, and a fairness hearing. They specifically asked to pause the September 29, 2023 deadline to answer the amended complaint.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted the application and ordered the requested stay of deadlines. The order did not decide the underlying claims or formally approve the settlement.
The detailed version
- Donoghue v. Antara Capital Master Fund LP · No. 1:23-cv-04985
- Rearden
- Sept. 21, 2023
Background
The filing described the matter as a stockholder action brought on behalf of AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Section 16(b) permits recovery of certain short-swing trading profits allegedly realized by specified insiders or other covered parties. The filing stated that the defendants allegedly realized such profits from trading in AMC equity securities.
Request
The parties reported that they had entered into a stipulation of settlement resolving the action. They asked the court to stay, meaning pause, all deadlines while they prepared additional settlement papers. The filing stated that the parties expected to seek formal settlement approval, approval of notice to AMC securityholders, and a fairness hearing. The parties specifically requested a stay of the September 29, 2023 deadline for AMC and the defendants to answer the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. All parties consented to the request.
Ruling
The court marked the application “GRANTED” and ordered it. The order therefore stayed the requested case deadlines. It did not formally approve the settlement and did not decide the merits of the Section 16(b) claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses case scheduling while settlement papers were being prepared, rather than deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.