Tee-Comm Electronics - 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

Tee-Comm Electronics Summary: According to the docket posted, on November 2, 3000, the Court entered the Order and Judgment signed by U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello. The settlement was approved and the case was closed. Earlier, on November 5, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss on December 28, 1998. On July 6, 1999, the Court issued a ruling denying the motions to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint. On July 25, 2000, a Stipulation of Settlement was filed.

By the Notice of Pendency of Class Action dated August 18, 2000, a Settlement Fund consisting of $1,800,000, plus interest, has been established. A hearing will be held on October 27, 2000, to determine whether a proposed settlement of the litigationas set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated July 21, 2000, is fair, reasonable and adequate and to consider the application of class counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

The original complaint charges the defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements relating to Tee-Comm's satellite television division, AlphaStar Television Network, Inc. ("Alphastar").

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Tee-Comm, through Alphastar, provided direct satellite television service in the United States and was in the process of launching service in Canada. Alphastar began broadcasting in the United States in July 1996 but never started broadcasting in Canada. During the Class Period, defendants disseminated a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning Tee-Comm which portrayed the Company in highly positive terms while failing to disclose that the Company was rapidly running out of cash and was not generating sufficient new subscribers and revenue to continue as a going concern. In particular, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following facts in summary form: (i) Tee-Comm's inability to fund the costs necessary to establish the Alphastar name in direct television and generate sufficient numbers of subscribers; (ii) Tee-Comm's inability to significantly grow its subscriber base; (iii) the Company's dire financial condition and inability to continue as a "going concern"; (iv) Tee-Comm's inability to complete financing necessary for its survival; and (v) Tee-Comm's dwindling supply of necessary cash and inability to fund operations in the near term. Notwithstanding the Company's dwindling cash and rapidly declining financial condition, defendants repeatedly pronounced their optimism for the Company's continued success and highlighted Alphastar's entrance into the direct television market. In truth and in fact, the Company was on the verge of insolvency at all relevant times and unable to effectively compete against better capitalized and more efficient competitors.

The complaint alleges that at the close of the Class Period, the price of Tee-Comm common stock closed down at $0.50 per share (as of May 21, 1997) -- a decrease of 95% from a Class Period high of $10.1875 per share, reached on September 16, 1996.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code:
Sector:
Industry:

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Tee-Comm Electronics
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	TENXF
COMPANY WEBSITE:

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Isaac Btesh , et al. v. Al Bahnman, et al.

COURT: D. Connecticut	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-00213
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Alfred V. Covello
DATE FILED: 02/03/1998	SOURCE: Other
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/31/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 05/27/1997
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Harris, Beach & Wilcox, LLP Two World Trade Center 85th Floor, New York, NY, 10048 (voice) 212.687.0100., (fax) , Laventhal & Zicklin , , , (voice) , (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 _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/03/1998

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Isaac Btesh , et al. v. Al Bahnman, et al.

COURT: D. Connecticut	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-00213
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Alfred V. Covello
DATE FILED: 11/05/1998	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/18/1995	CLASS PERIOD END: 05/27/1997
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
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: 1

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: 08/18/2000
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/03/2002

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

�