Michelle Leder of Footneted.org highlighted a PNRA filing last Friday. Interesting new disclosure in PNRA Q filed LATE Friday that has something happening TODAY. Says outcome could potentially be material, but it’s probably not big deal.
The following is the key part of the filing:
“On January 25, 2008 and February 26, 2008, purported class action lawsuits were filed against us and three of our current or former executive officers by the Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust and by Sue Trachet, respectively, on behalf of investors who purchased our common stock during the period between November 1, 2005 and July 26, 2006. Both lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis Division. Each complaint alleges that we and the other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with our disclosure of system-wide sales and earnings guidance during the period from November 1, 2005 through July 26, 2006. Each complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. On June 23, 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and the Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust was appointed lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On August 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which extended the class period to November 1, 2005 through July 26, 2007. We believe we and the other defendants have meritorious defenses to each of the claims in the lawsuit and we are prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit. On October 6, 2008, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in the lawsuit. On November 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss, and on December 3, 2008, we filed a reply memorandum in support of our motion to dismiss. On June 25, 2009, the Court converted our motion to one for summary judgment and denied it without prejudice. The Court simultaneously gave us until July 20, 2009 to file a new motion for summary judgment, which deadline the Court subsequently extended until August 10, 2009. There can be no assurance that we will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. We are not presently able to reasonably estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit and as such, have not recorded a liability in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.”