 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
ECI Telecom, Ltd. Conclusion: By the closing Order, dated November 15, 2002, from U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the case was settled and dismissed with prejudice.
On September 18, 2001, the District Court appointed Glancy & Binkow Lead Counsel to prosecute this case on behalf of ECI investors. In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs alleged ECI fraudulently engaged in a premature revenue recognition scheme, which violated both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and ECI’s own accounting policies. Following the District Court’s denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, plaintiff began extensive discovery. According to the Notice of Pendency and Settlement of the Class action, the parties reached an agreement on or about November 18, 2002 and established a Settlement Fund of $21.75 million in cash.
According to the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs alleged ECI fraudulently engaged in a premature revenue recognition scheme, which violated both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and ECI’s own accounting policies. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants ECI Telecom Ltd. and certain of its officers and directors violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market concerning, inter alia, ECI's reported revenue for the first, second and third quarters of 2000. On Feb. 14, 2001, the Company announced that it expected to move $38 million in revenue from 1999's financial statement to 2000, and $61 million from 2000 to 2001.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3661
Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | ECI Telecom, Ltd. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | ECIL |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.ecitele.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| David Tamir, et al., v. ECI Telecom Ltd., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: ECI Telecom Ltd. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Plaintiffs' Second Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint (for Violation of Federal Securities Laws) | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 12/07/2001 | ||
| Notice Of Pendency And Settlement Of Class Action | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 10/02/2002 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 11/15/2002 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 12/21/2004 | ||
| 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