The Litigation is currently pending before the Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The initial complaint in the Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the “Pennsylvania Court”) on October 5, 2020. On February 3, 2021, the Pennsylvania Court appointed Delaware County Employees Retirement System as Lead Plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel.
On April 12, 2021, Iron Workers District Counsel (Philadelphia and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan, represented by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, joined the Litigation as an additional plaintiff, and together Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (“Complaint”) alleging violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). On June 11, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. On June 22, 2021, upon Defendants’ motion, the Pennsylvania Court transferred the Litigation to the Court.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss on August 10, 2021, and Defendants filed their reply on September 6, 2021. The Court held oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss on November 29, 2021, and on January 12, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend with respect to certain allegations.
On December 15, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for partial relief from the PSLRA discovery stay. Defendants filed their opposition on December 28, 2021, and Plaintiffs filed their reply on January 4, 2022. On January 12, 2022, the Court denied as moot Plaintiffs’ motion.
On February 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Amended Complaint”). Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on March 10, 2022. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 13, 2022, and Defendants filed their reply on May 10, 2022. Plaintiffs filed their sur-reply in further opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 31, 2022. On August 10, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum and Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants answered the Amended Complaint on September 14, 2022.
On December 5, 2022, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class. Defendants filed their opposition on January 21, 2023. Plaintiffs filed their reply on May 8, 2023. Oral argument on Plaintiffs’ class certification motion was held on July 7, 2023. On September 27, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion, certifying a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Cabot common stock between February 22, 2016, and June 12, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged thereby. The Court also appointed Plaintiffs as class representatives and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as class counsel. On October 11, 2023, Defendants filed a petition to the Fifth Circuit for leave to appeal the class certification order pursuant to Rule 23(f). Plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 23, 2023, and on November 17, 2023, the Fifth Circuit denied Defendants’ Rule 23(f) petition. On December 1, 2023, Defendants filed a petition for panel and en banc rehearing of the Rule 23(f) petition, which was denied by the Fifth Circuit on December 18, 2023.
The parties conducted extensive fact and expert discovery, including litigating various discovery disputes, and class certification-related expert discovery. In all, Defendants and third parties produced more than 4.4 million pages of documents, and the parties conducted 19 fact and expert depositions.
On October 20, 2023, Plaintiffs moved to amend the Amended Complaint. Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on November 13, 2023, and Plaintiffs filed their reply on November 20, 2023. On January 8, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to amend. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Second Amended Complaint”) on January 9, 2024. Defendants answered the Second Amended Complaint on January 22, 2024.
Plaintiffs and Defendants participated in a voluntary confidential mediation session with David M. Murphy (of Phillips ADR), an experienced mediator, on May 11, 2023. The mediation session was preceded by submission of mediation statements by both Plaintiffs and Defendants (i.e., the Settling Parties). The Settling Parties engaged in good faith negotiations but did not reach a settlement at the mediation session, and litigation continued. The Settling Parties participated in a second mediation session with Mr. Murphy on April 18, 2024. This second mediation session was preceded once again by the submission and exchange of supplemental mediation briefs and exhibits. The Settling Parties engaged in good-faith negotiations but did not reach an agreement at the second mediation session. Following additional settlement discussions, on April 29, 2024, the Settling Parties accepted a mediator’s proposal to settle the Litigation in return for a cash payment of $40 million to be paid by Defendants and/or their insurers on behalf of Defendants for the benefit of the Class, subject to the negotiation of the terms of a Stipulation of Settlement and approval by the Court. The Stipulation (together with the Exhibits thereto) reflects the final and binding agreement among the Settling Parties.
Defendants deny each and all of the claims and contentions of wrongdoing alleged by Plaintiffs in the Litigation. Defendants contend that they did not make any materially false or misleading statements, that they disclosed all material information required by the federal securities laws, and that they at all times acted in good faith. Defendants also contend that any losses allegedly suffered by Members of the Class were not caused by any false or misleading statements by them and/or were caused by intervening events. Defendants also maintain that they have meritorious defenses to all claims that were raised or could have been raised in the Litigation.