 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Iridium World Communications, Ltd. Summary: The original Complaint asserts that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making material misrepresentations and omissions that caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period. The Complaint alleges that defendants falsely reported its ability to begin commercial sales of satellite cellular telephones it was developing, and withheld important information from investors regarding software and hardware problems that made the telephones unreliable. During the same period, Iridium is alleged to have sold $250 million of its own stock at inflated prices, and two top officers are alleged to have sold large amounts of their own Iridium stock.
NOTE: On August 13, 1999 Iridium filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, rendering any litigation against it stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). In light of this, plaintiffs have not named this entity as a defendant in their consolidated amended class action complaint.
On March 15, 2001, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Jackson granting the motion for consolidation of actions. On May 13, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. In July 2002, the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 10, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On September 1, 2004, the Court entered the Memorandum and Order denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. On April 15, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. On September 30, 2005, the underwriter defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On November 22, 2005, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey denying the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. On January 9, 2006, the Court entered the Order granting the plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification. On September 15, 2006, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey granted in part and denied in part the defendant Underwriters’ motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the motion to dismiss Count II against Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; NationsBanc Montgomery Securities, L.L.C.; and SoundView Technology Group, Inc. is granted, otherwise the motion is denied. On October 26, 2007, the motions for summary judgment were filed both by the plaintiffs and the defendants. On April 3, 2008, Judge Nanette K. Laughrey denied the motions for summary judgment.
According to a news article dated May 16, 2008, Motorola Inc. reached a tentative $20 million settlement for its part in the class action. Initially, the company was named as one of several defendants in the securities class actions arising out of alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Iridium satellite communications business. Prior to that, certain Individual and Underwriter Defendants filed motions for partial settlement. The Individual Defendants motions for preliminary approval, submitted on February 13, 2008, encompass a $14,850,000 agreement which was originally reached in 2006. On the same day, the Underwriter Defendants request final approval of a $8,250,000 settlement agreement. Both motions are currently pending.
On October 16, 2008, the Settlement Fairness Hearing was held before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. On October 23, 2008, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgments approving the Underwriter Defendants Settlement, the Individual Defendants Settlement and the Motorola Settlement. According to the Underwriter Defendants Settlement, Plaintiffs’ Counsel are awarded one-third (33-1/3%) of the Gross Underwriter Defendants Settlement Fund in fees, which sum the Court finds to be fair and reasonable, and $249,440.59. According to the Individual Defendants Settlement, Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded one-third (33-1/3%) of the Gross Individual Defendants Settlement Fund in fees, which sum the Court finds to be fair and reasonable, and $449,097.32. According to the Motorola Settlement, Plaintiffs’ Counsel are awarded one-third (33a%) of the Gross Motorola Settlement Fund in fees, which sum the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. Plaintiffs’ Counsel are also awarded $604,704.47.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 4812
Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Iridium World Communications, Ltd. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | IRIDQ |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.iridium.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Freeland, et al. v. Iridium World Communications Ltd., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 04/22/1999 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 04/27/1999 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: Iridium World Comm. Ltd. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Yong, et al. v. Iridium World Communications Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 04/26/1999 | ||
| Class Action Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Kleinman, et al. v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 04/26/1999 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Yong v. Iridium World Communications Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 04/27/1999 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Ackerman v. Iridium World Communications Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 04/28/1999 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Kleinman v. Iridium World Communications Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/03/1999 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Marshall v. Iridium World Communications Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/03/1999 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Hargrove v. Iridium World Communications Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/12/1999 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Turner v. Iridium World Communications Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/13/1999 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Ginechese v. Iridium World Communications Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/17/1999 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Strougo v. Iridium World Communications Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/26/1999 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Hammerschmidt v. Iridium World Communications Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/26/1999 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Maytorena v. Iridium World Communications Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/27/1999 | ||
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