Manger

Manger v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc.

Good Law
252 F. Supp. 3d 837·2017 WL 1861799·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70893
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 9, 2017Case No. 16-cv-01161-WHOCalifornia4,472 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Orrick, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

In this shareholder derivative lawsuit, plaintiff Pete Manger alleges that defendant Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. (LeapFrog) and seven of its former Board of Directors members violated , the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a false and misleading Recommendation Statement that recommended that shareholders of LeapFrog tender their shares pursuant to a Tender Offer from VTech. On a prior motion to dismiss, I found that Manger failed to state a claim under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act because he failed to allege with the required specificity which statements in the Recommendation Statement were false or misleading and why, failed to allege facts showing scienter, and failed to allege facts showing loss causation. I dismissed that claim, along with the pendent Section 20(a) claim, with leave to amend.

Manger filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), attempting to fix the problems I identified. He did not. For the reasons discussed below, I GRANT defendants’ motion and dismiss Manger’s SAC without leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

In February 2016, LeapFrog, VTech, and VTech’s wholly owned subsidiary Bonita Merger Sub, LLC entered into…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.