April 11, 2014 - The court ordered the authorization of the distribution of the net settlement fund.
May 20, 2013 - The court approved the settlement, entered the orders approving the plan of allocation, the motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

January 28, 2013 - The court preliminarily approved the settlement.

December 27, 2012 - Parties filed a stipulation of settlement.

September 7, 2012 - The court ordered the voluntary dismissal of particular defendants without prejudice.

October 27, 2011 - New lead plaintiffs and additional lead counsel were appointed.

October 7, 2011 - The named plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

September 28, 2011 - The court granted the defendants motion to dismiss, which dismisses the claims of all the lead plaintiffs, who constitute all named plaintiffs. The court also granted the motion to intervene and allowed for named plaintiffs.

January 10, 2011 - A renewed lead plaintiff motion was filed.

December 23, 2010 - A plaintiff filed a motion to intervene.

October 29, 2010 - Additional defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

October 7, 2010 - The court granted the motion to dismiss of particular individual defendants and denied the motion with respect to all other claims.

September 29, 2009 - Individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

July 31, 2009 - The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

June 15, 2009 - The lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed.

May 14, 2009 - Additional lead plaintiff motions were filed.

May 11, 2009 - A lead plaintiff motion was filed.

March 11, 2009 - An investor in shares of Perrigo Company PLC (NASDAQ: PRGO) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Perrigo Company PLC over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that Perrigo Company PLC and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misleading investors between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009 regarding the Perrigo Company PLC’s exposure to at least $18 million of Auction Rate Securities held by Perrigo Company PLC. In January and February of 2008, several auctions of Auction Rate Securities began to fail, limiting the liquidity of these securities. According to the complaint, Perrigo Company PLC was left holding $18 million of ARS when the market froze. With few secondary markets and virtually no liquidity, the value of most ARS declined, even though the issuers were not in default. One bank after another began to redeem the ARS their clients had purchased. Perrigo Company PLC had a reasonable expectation of redeeming its $18 million in ARS until September 15, 2008, on the day Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. declared bankruptcy. Lehman was the bank that underwrote and sold the ARS to Perrigo Company PLC. On November 6, 2008, the defendants reported the “fair value” of Perrigo Company PLC’s ARS as $14,500,000, but concealed the impact of Lehman’s bankruptcy on Perrigo Company PLC’s ARS, so the lawsuit. Then just three months later, on February 3, 2009, defendants disclosed, for the first time, that Lehman had underwritten and sold the ARS to Perrigo Company PLC They also announced that Perrigo Company PLC was writing off the entire value of its ARS, wiping out over a third of Perrigo Company PLC’s earnings in the quarter and as a result of this disclosure, the stock price of Perrigo Company PLC (NASDAQ: PRGO) decreased 18% that day, causing massive losses to investors, so the lawsuit.