In re National Research Corporation shareholder litigation

Filing 40

ORDER - The parties' motions for preliminary injunction (case no. 4:17-cv-441 filing 9 ; case no 4:17-cv-3152 filing 16 ) are denied as moot. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for case progression. Member Cases: 4:17-cv-00441-JMG-MDN, 4:17-cv-03152-JMG-MDN Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (LKO)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ANTHONY GENNARO, JR., on
Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated,

4:17-CV-441

Plaintiffs,
vs.

ORDER

NATIONAL RESEARCH
CORPORATION et al.,
Defendants.
JAMES D. GERSON, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly
situated shareholders of NATIONAL
RESEARCH CORPORATION, and
derivatively on behalf of Nominal
Defendant NATIONAL RESEARCH
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

4:17-CV-3152

vs.
ORDER
MICHAEL D. HAYS et al.,
Defendants,
and
NATIONAL RESEARCH
CORPORATION,
Nominal defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs' motions for
preliminary injunction (case no. 4:17-cv-441 filing 9; case no 4:17-cv-3152
filing 16). The Court has, on its own initiative, reviewed this matter for
purposes of case progression. The motions for preliminary injunction have
been stayed to this point, contemplating a possible amended complaint in
light of expected revisions to the underlying corporate reorganization
proposal. Case no. 4:17-cv-441 filing 35; case no 4:17-cv-3152 filing 32; see
case no. 4:17-cv-441 filing 33; case no 4:17-cv-3152 filing 30.
It appears to the Court that those revisions have been made: the
plaintiffs' complaints and motions for preliminary injunction were premised
on Preliminary Proxy Soliciting materials filed with the SEC that have since
been supplanted by a substantially different proposal. Compare case no. 4:17cv-441 filing 11-2, and case no 4:17-cv-3152 filing 18-2, with National
Research Corp., Preliminary Proxy Soliciting materials (Form PRER14A)
(Feb.

23,

2018),

available

at

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/

70487/000143774918003218/nrci20180219_prer14a.htm. Regardless of what
disagreements might remain among the parties, the specific grounds on
which the plaintiffs sought to preliminarily enjoin consummation of the
originally proposed transaction have been mooted by the revised proposal.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The parties' motions for preliminary injunction (case no.
4:17-cv-441 filing 9; case no 4:17-cv-3152 filing 16) are
denied as moot.

2.

This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for case
progression.

-2-

Dated this 7th day of March, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

-3-