Pacific Telesis Group and SBC Communications Inc. : 401(k) retirement accounts

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

Pacific Telesis Group and SBC Communications Inc. : 401(k) retirement accounts Summary: On October 19, 2000, the Court entered the Stipulation and Order consolidating cases 2:00-cv-758 with member cases 2:00-cv-4139 for all purposes. According to the Stipulation and Order, previously, the Court granted the motion of defendants SBC Communications, Inc., Pacific Telesis Group, and Pacific Bell Telephone Company to dismiss the federal and state securities law causes of action in Haney v. Pacific Telesis Group, Case No. 00-758, some with, and some without, leave to amend. The remaining (ERISA) claims in the Haney action are substantially similar to the claims in the Gottlieb v. SBC Communications, Inc., Case No. 00-4139. The Court has already found the cases to be related. Thus, according to the Order, the Haney and Gottlieb actions are consolidated and plaintiffs in Gottlieb and Haney will jointly file and serve on counsel a Consolidated Amended Complaint. According to the docket for the Gottlieb action, on November 3, 2000, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed. On December 11, 2002, the Court entered the Final Order approving the settlement of that class action.

According to the Order entered on September 20, 2000, and signed by U.S. District Judge A. H. Matz, the Court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice the 5th, 7th and 8th causes of action in the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Further, the Court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss the 6th cause of action with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this order, which was later voluntarily dismissed.

On February 28, 2001, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in April 2000. On May 8, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, and on June 20, 2000, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss causes 5 to 8 of the action in the Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to: (a) section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, section 10(b) and Rule l0b-5 of the Securities Exchange Commission. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims under ERISA section 502(e)-(f), 28, U.S.C. section 1132(e)-(f) 28, U.S.C. section 1331, and section 27 and 28 of the Exchange Act, and U.S.C. section 1391(b).

The original complaint alleges employees of Pacific Telesis Group (PTG), now SBC Communications Inc., accused the company of abdicating its fiduciary duties and manipulating 401(k) accounts for corporate gain. Among other claims, the plaintiffs say SBC executives violated federal law by "intentionally failing to give clear, timely and informative notice to the PTG Plans' participants of their rights" to keep their stock from being liquidated.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 4813
Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Pacific Telesis Group and SBC Communications Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	PAC_pu
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.sbc.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Darlene Haney, et al. v. Pacific Telesis Group, et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-00758
JUDGE NAME: Hon. A. H. Matz
DATE FILED: 05/08/2000	SOURCE: Complaint
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/01/1994	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/01/1997
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Capello & McCann 831 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA, 93101 (voice) 805.564.2444, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Darlene Haney, et al. v. Pacific Telesis Group, et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-00758
JUDGE NAME: Hon. A. H. Matz
DATE FILED: 05/08/2000	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/01/1994	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/01/1997
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Capello & McCann 831 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA, 93101 (voice) 805.564.2444, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Second Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/13/2000
Order 1) Granting Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fifth, Seventh And Eighth Causes Of Action With Prejudice And 2) Granting Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Sixth Cause Of Action With Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/19/2000
Stipulation And Regarding Consolidation And Consolidated Amended Complaint
Type: Order		Date on the document: 10/18/2000
Civil Minutes
Type: Other		Date on the document: 11/07/2000
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/21/2001

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Hearing
Case Name and/or Number: Larry F. Gottlieb, et al. v. SBC Communications, Inc., et al.
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 08/13/2002
Final Order Approving Settlement of Class Action and Dismissal With Prejudice
Case Name and/or Number: Larry F. Gottlieb, et al. v. SBC Communciations, Inc., et al.
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/11/2002
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Larry F. Gottlieb, et al. v. SBC Communications, Inc., et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/11/2004

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

�