WELCOME TO THE RECKITT SECURITIES SETTLEMENT WEBSITE

This website has been established to provide general information related to the proposed settlement of the case known as City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System v. Reckitt Benckiser Group plc, et al. (the “Litigation”), Case No. 1:20-cv-10041-PKC, pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). The capitalized terms used on this website, and not otherwise defined, shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement dated March 10, 2023 (the "Stipulation"), which can be found and downloaded by clicking on the Case Documents tab above. Your rights may be affected by the Settlement if, between July 28, 2014 and April 9, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”), you purchased or otherwise acquired Reckitt Benckiser Group plc (“Reckitt” or the “Company”) American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”).

The entities that lead the Litigation, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System and City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System, are referred to as the “Plaintiffs.” The entities and individuals, Reckitt, Rakesh Kapoor, and Shaun Thaxter, that are being sued are collectively referred to as the “Defendants.”

The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Lead Counsel”) represent Class Members. Class Members will not be charged for these lawyers. They will be paid from the Settlement Fund to the extent the Court approves their application for fees and expenses.

WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT?

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, filed on January 11, 2021, alleged that Defendants and former defendants Adrian Hennah and Adrian Bellamy (the “Former Defendants”) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and English common and statutory law (the “English Law Claims”). More specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding an alleged scheme to mislead investors and the public regarding the advantages of Suboxone Film, a drug marketed by Reckitt’s former subsidiary, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“RBP”). Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that in order to maintain and grow profits, senior executives at Reckitt and RBP devised a plan to switch prescribers from Suboxone Tablets to the new proprietary treatment Suboxone Film. Plaintiffs alleged Reckitt and RBP executives created a marketing campaign that touted the purported safety benefits of Suboxone Film over Suboxone Tablets in order to prevent generic competition, causing the prices of the Company’s ADSs and ordinary shares to trade at artificially inflated prices, until the market learned of the allegedly false and misleading statements, and the Company’s share price significantly declined.

On January 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, and following transfer of the Litigation to this Court, on January 11, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint.

On February 25, 2021, Defendants filed pre-motion to dismiss letters pursuant to the Court’s individual practices. On March 10, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a response letter seeking leave to amend the complaint, which the Court granted.

On March 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”). On June 25, 2021, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on August 24, 2021, and Defendants filed their replies on September 23, 2021. On February 28, 2022, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Specifically, the Court dismissed the English Law Claims. Defendants answered the Complaint on April 13, 2022.

The parties held their Initial Pre-Trial Conference with the Court on April 29, 2022.

On June 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their Complaint and join an additional party. Defendants opposed the motion on July 5, 2022, and Plaintiffs filed their reply on July 12, 2022. No decision had been rendered on the motion at the time this Settlement was reached, and on December 21, 2022, Plaintiffs withdrew the motion. The withdrawal was SO ORDERED on January 3, 2023.

On October 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. Defendants filed their notice of non-opposition on December 19, 2022. On January 3, 2023, the Court ordered that, “[i]n view of the anticipated motion for preliminary approval, the motion to certify and other relief [was] DENIED without prejudice.”

On November 1, 2021, the Settling Parties participated in a confidential mediation with the Hon. Layn Phillips (Ret.), an experienced mediator. The mediation was preceded by the submission and exchange of mediation statements by the Settling Parties. The Settling Parties engaged in good-faith negotiations, but did not reach a settlement and litigation continued. The Settling Parties held a second mediation with Judge Phillips on October 12, 2022. In advance of the second mediation, the parties provided Judge Phillips with updated mediation statements. Again, the Settling Parties engaged in good-faith negotiations, but no settlement was reached. The Settling Parties continued to engage in arm’s-length negotiations, and on December 20, 2022, reached an agreement to resolve the Litigation, subject to the negotiation of mutually acceptable terms of a settlement agreement.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

The agreement-in-principle included, among other things, the Settling Parties’ agreement to settle the Litigation in return for a cash payment of $19.6 million for the benefit of the Class, subject to the negotiation of the terms of a Stipulation of Settlement and approval by the Court. The Stipulation (together with the Exhibits thereto) reflects the final and binding agreement, and a compromise of all matters that are in dispute, between the Settling Parties.

Defendants deny each and all of the claims and contentions of wrongdoing alleged by Plaintiffs in the Litigation, as well as any and all allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages whatsoever arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts, or omissions that have been alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the Litigation. Defendants contend that they did not make any materially false or misleading statements, that they disclosed all material information required to be disclosed by the federal securities laws, and that any alleged misstatements or omissions were not made with the requisite intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. Defendants also contend that any losses allegedly suffered by Members of the Class were not caused by any allegedly false or misleading statements by them and/or were caused by intervening events. Defendants continue to believe that the claims asserted against them in the Litigation are without merit. Defendants also maintain that they have meritorious defenses to all claims that were raised or could have been raised in the Litigation.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Although the information in this website is intended to assist you, it does not replace the information contained in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the “Notice”) and Stipulation, both of which can be found and downloaded by clicking on the Case Documents tab above. We recommend that you read the Notice and other relevant case documents carefully.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES