Conrail 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

Conrail Inc. Conclusion: According to the docket, on September 25, 1997, the Court entered the Memorandum And Order that Defendants' motioned to dismiss is granted; Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint are dismissed; Count III (The State Law Claim) is dismissed without prejudice; plaintiff's Motion to be Appointed Lead Plaintiff and for Appointment of Lead and Co-Lead counsel, and plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification are denied as moot. Case is closed.

According to the closing Order, dated September 24, 1997, the court held the stockholder failed to state a viable securities fraud claim under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, as a matter of law. The stockholder failed to state a claim that the alleged omissions were "material." Moreover, the corporation and its officer were not under a duty to disclose another railroad's preliminary and rejected overtures. Because the stockholder failed to state a claim under § 10(b), it followed the stockholder failed to state a "controlling person" claim against the corporation's officer under § 20(a). The court granted the motion to dismiss the corporation and its officer and dismissed the stockholder's amended complaint. The stockholder's motion to be appointed lead stockholder and for appointment of lead and co-lead counsel and the stockholder's motion for class certification were denied as moot.

On June 13, 1997, plaintiff Barry Berkowitz filed an Amended complaint.

The original complaint alleged that Conrail and Conrail's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements which omitted material facts regarding communications by Norfolk Southern Corp. concerning Norfolk Southern's interest in entering into a business combination, such as a merger or acquisition, with Conrail. Instead, Conrail announced its agreement to merge with CSX Corp. in a transaction that would pay Conrail shareholders a combination of CSX stock and cash with a blended value of approximately $89.00 per Conrail share. Conrail did not disclose the fact that Norfolk Southern had, over the last two years and as recently as September and October of 1996, expressed its interest in merging with or acquiring Conrail.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 4011
Sector: Transportation
Industry: Railroads

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Conrail Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	CRR [DELISTED]
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.conrail.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Berkowitz, et al. v. Conrail, Inc., et al.

COURT: E.D. Pennsylvania	DOCKET NUMBER: 97-CV-1214
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Donald W. Vanartsdalen
DATE FILED: 02/18/1997	SOURCE: Other
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/15/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/22/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Berkowitz, et al. v. Conrail, Inc., et al.

COURT: E.D. Pennsylvania	DOCKET NUMBER: 97-CV-1214
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Donald W. Vanartsdalen
DATE FILED: 06/13/1997	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/15/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/22/1996
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 _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
US District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/25/1997

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

�