Company and Case Information

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


Iridium World Communications, Ltd.
Summary: According to a news article dated May 16, 2008, Motorola Inc. reached a tentative $20­million 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.

According to the docket posted, 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 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.

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.

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.
 COURT: D. District Columbia  DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-01002
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Thomas P. Jackson
 DATE FILED: 4/22/1999  SOURCE: Business Wires
 CLASS PERIOD START: 9/9/1998  CLASS PERIOD END: 3/29/1999
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 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
  • Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC)
      1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005
       (voice) 202.408.4600, (fax) 202.408.4699, lawinfo@cmht.com
  • Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran
      1050 30th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20007
       (voice) 202.337.8000, (fax) 202.337.8090, contact@ftllaw.com
  • Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
      One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065
       (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) ,
  • Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
      3181 South 27th Street, Milwaukee, WI, 53215
       (voice) 866.264.3995, (fax) 414.482.8001, info@murrayfrank.com
  • Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
      3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
       (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com
  • Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
      6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017
       (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com
  • Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
      270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016
       (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  8

  •  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
     COURT: D. District Columbia  DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-01002
     JUDGE NAME: Hon. Thomas P. Jackson
     DATE FILED: 5/13/2002  SOURCE: Business Wires
     CLASS PERIOD START: 9/9/1998  CLASS PERIOD END: 3/29/1999
     TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
     PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Beatie & Osborne LLP
      599 Lexington Avenue, 42nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022
       (voice) 212.888.9000, (fax) 212.888.9664,
  • Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
      299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY, 10171
       (voice) 212.894.7200, (fax) 212.894.7272, info@entwistle-law.com
  • Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran
      1050 30th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20007
       (voice) 202.337.8000, (fax) 202.337.8090, contact@ftllaw.com
  • Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
      One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065
       (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) ,
  • Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
      270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016
       (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  5

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 03/26/2007
    Lead Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Under The Doctrine Of Collateral Estoppel
    Type: Motion Date on the document: 10/26/2007
    Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement With The Individual Defendants
    Type: Motion Date on the document: 2/13/2008
    Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement With The Underwriter Defendants
    Type: Motion Date on the document: 2/13/2008
    Order
    Type: Order Date on the document: 4/3/2008
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 5/1/2008

     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