Print Page  |  Close Window

SEC Filings

10-Q
TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC. filed this Form 10-Q on 06/27/2017
Entire Document
 

IPO regarding SunEdison and its recent operating results and business strategy. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper. On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison’s voluntary petition for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 27, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to remand. On June 1, 2016, the defendants moved to transfer the case to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison’s bankruptcy is pending. The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations.
On March 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed Glenview Capital Partners, L.P. et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the Company, SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company and SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company’s August 5, 2015 bond offering and SunEdison’s August 18, 2015 preferred stock offering. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as the Maryland Securities Act. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they purchased securities pursuant to offering documents that contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted other material facts necessary to make the statements in the offering documents not misleading. The complaint further alleges that these false and misleading statements led to the forced conversion of the plaintiffs’ Class D securities into restricted common stock, that the Company breached the June 9, 2015 Class D Purchase Agreement between the Company and the plaintiffs, and that the defendants made negligent misrepresentations in connection with the Company’s Class D registration statement. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper. On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison’s voluntary petition for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 26, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On May 27, 2016, the defendants moved to transfer the case to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison’s bankruptcy is pending. The Court held a hearing on the motion to remand and the motion to transfer on August 18, 2016. On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and granting the defendants’ motion to transfer. The Court also certified a legal issue for interlocutory review, and on September 2, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November 17, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an order requiring all parties to file statements addressing the effect of the Multidistrict Litigation Panel’s transfer order on the motion for permission to appeal. On December 8, 2016, the parties filed their responses. The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations.
On March 30, 2016, plaintiffs filed Omega Capital Investors et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the Company, SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company and SunEdison, and the underwriters of SunEdison’s preferred stock offering. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as the Maryland Securities Act. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements in connection with the Company’s IPO, and that these false and misleading statements led to the forced conversion of their Class D securities into restricted common stock. The complaint further alleges that the Company breached the June 9, 2015 Class D Purchase Agreement between the Company and the plaintiffs and made negligent misrepresentations in connection with the Company’s Class D registration statement. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper. On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison’s voluntary petition for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 26, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On June 1, 2016, the defendants moved to transfer the case to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison’s bankruptcy is pending. The Court held a hearing on the motion to remand and the motion to transfer on August 18, 2016. On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and granting the defendants’ motion to transfer. The Court also certified a legal issue for interlocutory review, and on September 2, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November 17, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an order requiring all parties to file statements addressing the effect of the Multidistrict Litigation Panel’s transfer order on the motion for permission to appeal. On December 8, 2016, the parties filed their responses. The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations.

33