Airtouch Communications, 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

Airtouch Communications, Inc. Conclusion: According to the docket, on February 11, 2000, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick dismissing the case for the reason that plaintiff failed to file a second amended complaint by January 10, 2000. Earlier, on December 15, 1999, Judge Orrick issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing the plaintiff’s first amended complaint for failure to satisfy the pleading requirement for materiality and scienter under PSLRA. Also, on November 18, 1999, Judge Orrick granted the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On April 8, 1999, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges Airtouch stock had recently been on the rise on reports that the company was involved "in off-again and on-again talks with a number of potential acquirors." On January 3, 1999, the company issued a press release stating that Airtouch was in late-stage negotiations with Bell Atlantic (NYSE:BEL) "that could lead to a possible business combination between the two companies." Led to believe that the bidding war over AirTouch was over almost before it had begun, AirTouch shareholders began a huge sell-off of their AirTouch shares, with the stock closing down over $4, at $68 1/16, on January 4, 1999. However, what the January 3 press release failed to mention was that another bidder, Vodafone, was also engaged in negotiating to acquire AirTouch. Specifically, as was reported two days later, Vodafone had approached AirTouch about a possible merger, offering more than $45 billion, topping the estimated value of Bell Atlantic's offer and setting the stage for a possible battle over AirTouch. Once Vodafone's interest in acquiring AirTouch was belatedly disclosed, the price of the Company's shares soared $9.25 to close at $77-1/2 on January 5, 1999.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 4812
Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	AirTouch Comm.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	ATI
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.airtouch.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Samet, et al. v. AirTouch Communications, Inc., et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-0124
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Dean D. Pregerson
DATE FILED: 01/06/1999	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/04/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/04/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY) 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 800.217.1522, (fax) , info@bernlieb.com Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY) The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126 (voice) 212.682.3025, (fax) 212.682.3010, info@wyca.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/07/1999
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/19/1999

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Samet, et al. v. AirTouch Communications, Inc., et al.

COURT: N.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-1868
JUDGE NAME: Hon. William H. Orrick
DATE FILED: 07/19/1999	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/04/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/04/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY) The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126 (voice) 212.682.3025, (fax) 212.682.3010, info@wyca.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/09/2000

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

�