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


Covad Communications : Common Stock and Convertible Senior Notes
Conclusion: According to the docket, on December 19, 2002, the Court entered both the Order approving the settlement proceeds and the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal. On January 10, 2003, the Court further entered the Order awarding plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. A Notice of Appeal was soon after filed by the plaintiff, and on March 15, 2004, the Court entered the certified copy of the Order from the U.S. Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the District Court.

As stated in the Notice of Settlement, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the action. The Settlement creates a fund in the amount of $16.5 million in cash and will include any interest that accrues on the fund prior to distribution as well as 6,495,844 shares of Covad common stock subject to certain terms and conditions. The stock is to be issued exempt from the registration requirements pursuant to §3(a) (10) of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or §1145 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Based on Lead Plaintiffs' estimate of the number of securities entitled to participate in the Settlement, the current price of Covad stock, and the anticipated number of claims to be submitted by Class members the average distribution per security would be approximately $0.27 before deduction of court-approved fees and expenses.

If the Settlement is approved by the District Court, counsel for the Plaintiffs will apply to the District Court for attorneys' fees of 25% of the settlement proceeds plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses not to exceed $300,000 to be paid from the settlement proceeds. The four Lead Plaintiffs may also seek reimbursement for the time expended and expense incurred by each of them in serving as Lead Plaintiff. If sought, the amounts will not exceed $5,000 for each. If the amount requested by counsel is approved by the District Court, the average cost per security would be $0.07.

The original complaint charges Covad and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the revenues that Covad was deriving from its newly acquired BlueStar business, which, together with defendants' false representations that Covad would post Q3 2000 EPS of $(1.18) and revenues of $74.7 million, operated to artificially inflate the price of Covad stock to a Class Period high of $20.93 on September 11, 2000. This upsurge in Covad's stock caused by defendants' alleged false and misleading statements enabled Covad to complete a $500 million bond offering and the $140 million stock-for-stock acquisition of BlueStar. On October 17, 2000, 15 business days after the acquisition of BlueStar was completed and just 18 business days after Covad raised $500 million in a debt offering, Covad revealed that it was in fact suffering a huge decline in revenues, was not posting smaller negative EPS growth, and contrary to defendants' repeated assurances, Covad was forced to reveal the problems it had been experiencing during the Class Period in attempting to grow its business. This announcement caused its stock price to drop to as low as $3.50 (or over $5 per share) on record volume of 70 million shares on October 18, 2000, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to members of the Class.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 4813
Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Covad Communications
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: COVD
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.covad.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Pincay Investments Co., et al. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., et al.
 COURT: N.D. California  DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-3891
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
 DATE FILED: 10/20/2000  SOURCE: Notice
 CLASS PERIOD START: 09/07/2000  CLASS PERIOD END: 10/17/2000
 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
  • Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco, CA, 94105-2835sco
       (voice) 800.778.1822, (fax) 415.777.5189, info@gbcsf.com
  • Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
      100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111
       (voice) 415.288.4545, (fax) 415.288.4534,
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  3

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 10/20/2000
    Declaration of Lesley E. Weaver in Support of
    Type: Declaration Date on the document: 12/19/2000
    Notice Of Motion, Motion And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion To Appoint Creedon Capital, LDC, Cheyne Fund LP, DC Capital Partners, L.P. And Gregory Gill As Lead Plaintiff Pursuant To Section 21D(a)(3)(B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 And To Approve Lead Plaintiff's Choice Of Counsel
    Type: Notice Date on the document: 12/19/2000
    Notice of Motion, Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Consolidate Related Actions
    Type: Notice Date on the document: 12/19/2000

    REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    In Re: Covad Securities Litigation
     COURT: N.D. California  DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-3891
     JUDGE NAME: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
     DATE FILED: 06/22/2001  SOURCE: Business Wires
     CLASS PERIOD START: 04/19/2000  CLASS PERIOD END: 05/24/2001
     TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
     PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP
      11311 Arcade Drive - Suite 201, Little Rock, AR, 72212
       (voice) 501.312.8500, (fax) ,
  • Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP (Little Rock, AR)
      11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR, 72212
       (voice) , (fax) ,
  • Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
      600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101
       (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com
  • Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
      3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
       (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  4

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    Consolidated Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 06/22/2001
    Declaration Of Sylvie K. Kern In Support Of Settlement
    Type: Declaration Date on the document: 10/11/2002
    Defendants’ Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Settlement
    Type: Other Date on the document: 10/11/2002
    Notice Of Pendency And Settlement Of Class Action And Settlement Hearing
    Type: Settlement Date on the document: 10/25/2002
    Defendants’ Response To Objection To Settlement
    Type: Other Date on the document: 12/13/2002
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 03/31/2004

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: Pond Equities, et al. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 10/23/2000
    Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: Steve Albert, et al. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 10/23/2000
    Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: Charles E. Taylor, et al. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 10/23/2000
    Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: Ethan Frey, et al. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 10/27/2000
    Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: David R. Taylor, et al. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 11/08/2000
    Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: Michael Abood, et al. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 11/22/2000
    Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Exchange Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: Michael Weiss, et al. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 11/28/2000
    Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: Allwyn J. Levine, M.D., et al. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 11/29/2000
    Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: Weyman Thomas, et al. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 12/01/2000
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Case Name and/or Number: Weiss, et al. v. Covad Communications, et al.
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 01/26/2001

    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