CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. Conclusion: According to the docket, on November 3, 1999, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. The plaintiffs’ counsel was awarded $900,000 in fees and $42,219 in reimbursement of expenses. The case is closed.

As reported in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1999, CAI and certain individuals were named in six class action lawsuits alleging various violations of the federal securities laws filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The actions were consolidated into one lawsuit entitled IN RE CAI WIRELESS SYSTEMS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION (96-CV-1857), which is currently pending in the Northern District of New York against chairman and chief executive officer of CA; a former president, chief operating officer and director of CAI; and, a former president and director of CAI. The amended, consolidated complaint alleges a variety of violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Federal securities laws by CAI arising out of its alleged disclosure (or alleged omission from disclosure) regarding its Internet and other flexible use of MMDS spectrum, as well as its business relationship with Bell Atlantic and NYNEX. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act, during the specified class period, May 23, 1996 through December 6, 1996. CAI notified the carrier of its Directors' and Officers' Liability insurance policy, which is intended to cover not only CAI's officers and directors, but also CAI, itself, against claims such as those made in the securities lawsuit. The policy covers up to $5,000,000 of any covered liability, subject to a retention amount of $500,000. The securities lawsuit is in its preliminary stages. A scheduling conference was held on June 3, 1997, at which the briefing schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss was agreed upon among the parties. The defendants' motion to dismiss was heard by the Northern District of New York on October 17, 1997 and is still pending. While the motion is pending, all other deadlines affecting motions and discovery have been postponed. CAI's plan of reorganization provided no recovery to any holder of CAI's equity or to any holder of an equity-based claim, such as the claims made against CAI in the securities lawsuit. Upon the confirmation of CAI's plan of reorganization on September 30, 1998 and the October 14, 1998 consummation of the plan of reorganization, plaintiffs' claims against CAI in the securities lawsuit were discharged and released by order of the Bankruptcy Court. Furthermore, the securities lawsuit plaintiffs were enjoined from continuing their action against CAI. A Memorandum of Understanding outlining a settlement in the amount of $3,000,000 (all of which will be covered by the proceeds from the above-referenced liability insurance policy) has been executed by counsel to all parties. The parties have executed a settlement agreement and anticipate submitting such agreement to the court for final disposition of this action shortly.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 4841
Sector: Services
Industry: Broadcasting & Cable TV

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	CAI Wireless Systems
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	CAWS
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.fool.com/Features/1996/sp0529c.htm

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

William Hughes, et al. v. CAI Wireless Systems, Inc., et al.

COURT: N.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-1857
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn
DATE FILED: 11/22/1996	SOURCE: Internet
CLASS PERIOD START: 5/23/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/29/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Lawrence G. Soicher 342 Madison Avenue, 18th Floor , New York, NY, 10173 (voice) 212/883.8000, (fax) , Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna One Commerce Plaza, Albany, NY, 12260 (voice) 518.487.7600, (fax) 518.487.7777, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/21/1996

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: N.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-1857
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn
DATE FILED: 4/14/1997	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 5/23/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/29/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action, Proposed Settlement Thereof, Settlement Hearing And Right To Share In Settlement Fund
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 08/23/1999
US District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 12/19/2000

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�