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


Salomon Smith Barney, Inc./Citigroup : AT&T Corporation and AT&T Wireless
Conclusion: On August 17, 2006, the Court entered the Judgment and Order of Dismissal settling the action. A Notice of Appeal was filed from the Judgment and later withdrawn

According to the Notice of Pendency dated May 24, 2006, the proposed settlement is in the amount of $74,750,000 plus interest. A Settlement Hearing is scheduled for August 11, 2006.

On January 31, 2003, the Court entered the Order consolidating several actions under re Salomon Analyst AT&T Litigation, 02-CV-6801 (BSJ). On October 15, 2003, an Amended Complaint was filed. On October 15, 2003, an Amended Complaint was filed, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 23, 2003. On December 3, 2004, the Court entered the Opinion and Order #90955 granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On January 25, 2005, the defendants again filed a motion to dismiss. On November 18, 2005, the Court entered the Order stating that the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiffs' motion for leave to file sur-reply are deemed withdrawn, without prejudice to its reinstatement if the settlement is for any reason not consummated. On April 7, 2006, the Court entered the Order preliminarily approving settlement and scheduling a fairness hearing. On April 5, 2006, the Parties' Proposed Stipulation of Settlement was filed.

The complaint alleges that defendants recommended the purchase of AT&T common stock without regard to the factual basis and without disclosing its conflicts of interest. When issuing the analyst report, the Defendants Salomon and Grubman failed to disclose significant, material conflicts of interest, including the following: that, in an explicit or implicit quid pro quo, Salomon was granted a lucrative role in the April 2000 issuance of an AT&T Wireless tracking stock, after Grubman, at AT&T's request, passed to Grubman by Weill, raised his recommendation of AT&T in November 1999 from "neutral" to "buy."

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


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: AT&T Corporation and AT&T Wireless
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: T
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.att.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Stanley Sved, et al. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., et al.
 COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 02-CV-06801
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan
 DATE FILED: 08/26/2002  SOURCE: Business Wires
 CLASS PERIOD START: 11/29/1999  CLASS PERIOD END: 08/22/2002
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL)
      One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca Raton, FL, 33431
       (voice) 561.750.3000, (fax) 561.750.3364,
  • Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
      3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
       (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com
  • Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
      270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016
       (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  3

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 08/23/2002

    REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    In re Salomon Analyst AT&T Litigation
     COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 02-CV-06801
     JUDGE NAME: Hon. Gerard E. Lynch
     DATE FILED: 10/15/2003  SOURCE: Business Wires
     CLASS PERIOD START: 11/29/1999  CLASS PERIOD END: 08/22/2002
     TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
     PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (New York)
      100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516ven
       (voice) 212.661.1100, (fax) 212.661.8665, info@pomerantzlaw.com/
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  1

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement And Scheduling Fairness Hearing
    Type: Order Date on the document: 03/02/2006
    Stipulation of Settlement
    Type: Settlement Date on the document: 03/15/2006
    Notice Of Pendency And Proposed Settlement Of Class Action
    Type: Notice Date on the document: 05/24/2006
    Proof of Claim and Release
    Type: Other Date on the document: 05/24/2006
    Declaration Of Marc I. Gross, Esq. In Support Of Final Approval Of The Settlement, Plan Of Allocation, Attorneys’ Fees And Expenses Award, And Compensatory Award For Lead Plaintiff
    Type: Declaration Date on the document: 06/27/2006
    Lead Plaintiff’s Memorandum Of Law In Support Of An Award Of Attorneys’ Fees And Expenses And A Compensatory Award For Lead Plaintiff
    Type: Memorandum Date on the document: 06/27/2006
    Lead Plaintiff’s Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Final Approval Of The Settlement And Plan Of Allocation
    Type: Memorandum Date on the document: 06/27/2006
    Judgment and Order of Dismissal
    Type: Order Date on the document: 08/17/2006
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 02/26/2007

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: Currens
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 08/27/2002
    Class Action Complaint
    Case Name and/or Number: Barron
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 09/10/2002

    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