Posts tagged "Robotics"

In re Rewalk Robotics Ltd. Stockholder Litigation (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-063-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS   SUFFOLK, ss.                                                                       SUPERIOR COURT                                                                                                 CIV. NO. 16-3336- BLS 2                                                                                                 (Consol. with 16-3670-BLS 2)     IN RE REWALK ROBOTICS LTD. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION      MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED REQUEST TO STAY     This is a putative class action brought pursuant to Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The lead case was filed October 31, 2016 and the second on November 30, 2106, with the two actions consolidated in January 2017.  In April this year, the defendants moved to stay this case because of pending parallel federal multi-district litigation proceedings.  This Court (Salinger, J.) denied that request because nothing had taken place of note in the federal litigation and because this case was filed first. Defendants then moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Mass.R.Civ. P.    One (but not the only)  basis for that motion was that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction — an issue over which federal courts have split and which was central to a case which was the subject of a then pending petition for writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court.  A hearing  on the Motion to Dismiss was held on October 18, 2017 and the matter taken under advisement.  Shortly thereafter, four of the individual defendants who resided overseas moved to dismiss for lack of service of process; the plaintiffs responded by asking for more time.  At a hearing on this latest motion, defense counsel again renewed their request to stay based on developments since Judge Salinger ruled.  This Court now agrees that this action should be stayed in favor of the pending federal proceedings. Since the original motion to stay was filed, the pending federal litigation in Massachusetts has been expanded to include a case that had been originally filed in California.  There is therefore not just one but two federal cases here that raises the same issues and involves the same parties.  Requiring the parties to litigate in two separate forums — particularly where the federal action is broader and thus will likely proceed regardless of what this Court does – is not a wise use of judicial or litigation resources.  The petition to the United States Supreme Court has been granted, and arguments on that case were heard on November 28, 2017.  If the Supreme Court concludes that this Court does not have jurisdiction, then this case will have to be dismissed.  Most important, defendants have filed a motion to dismiss in the federal litigation that makes similar (if not entirely identical) arguments as were asserted in the motion that this Court heard on October 18.  A hearing on that motion […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 9, 2018 at 2:20 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

In re ReWalk Robotics Ltd. Stockholder Litigation (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-048-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT. 1684CV03336-BLS2 1684CV03670-BLS2 ____________________ IN RE REWALK ROBOTICS LITD. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION ____________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING PARALLEL FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS The named plaintiffs in these putative class actions claim that ReWalk Robotics Ltd. and thirteen other defendants are liable under §§ 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the federal Securities Act because ReWalk purportedly made false statements in a registration statement and prospectus concerning a public offering of securities. The first of these actions was filed on October 31, 2016. The second was filed on November 30, 2016. They were consolidated on January 9, 2017. A similar lawsuit making similar Securities Act claims against the same Defendants was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January 31, 2017. That lawsuit was docketed as Deng v. ReWalk Robotics et al., no. 1:17-cv-10179-FDS, and is pending before Judge Saylor. Defendants have moved to stay these state court proceedings pending dispositive resolution of this federal lawsuit.1 A trial judge has broad discretion to grant or deny a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the same or similar claims in another forum. Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. Zotal, Ltd., 394 Mass. 95, 97 (1985). The Court concludes, in the exercise of its discretion, that there is no good reason to stay these actions. It will therefore DENY Defendants’ motion. 1 When Defendants filed their motion to stay, they represented that a second federal class action asserting similar claims had been filed against them in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and that Defendants have moved to have the two federal actions consolidated in the District of Massachusetts as a single multidistrict litigation proceeding. In their reply memorandum, however, Defendants report that the California action was voluntarily dismissed on March 23, 2017. As a result, there are currently only two sets of actions asserting similar Securities Act claims against ReWalk and the other Defendants: these two actions in Massachusetts Superior Court and the Deng case filed several months later in federal court in the District of Massachusetts. – 2 – Although Defendants argue that it would be inefficient for these cases and the pending federal action to proceed at the same time, they do not muster any convincing explanation as to why they seek a stay of these actions in Massachusetts court rather than asking the federal judge to stay the later-filed federal action. The first of these consolidated actions was filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court three months before the pending federal action was filed. Furthermore, the additional factual allegations asserted in the consolidated complaint in these actions suggest that the state court plaintiffs have […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 27, 2017 at 4:32 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,