El Paso Electric Company - 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

El Paso Electric Company Conclusion: According to the Company’s Form 10-Q For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement with the Court on June 2, 2005, and the Court issued a final order approving the settlement on September 15, 2005. The settlement was paid by the Company’s insurance carrier since the deductible had been met and did not require any further charge to the Company’s earnings.

By the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, the Settlement Fund consisted of $10,000,000 in cash, plus interest.

As reported by the same SEC filing, the lead plaintiff, Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois, filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 2, 2003, alleging, among other things, that the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers violated securities laws by failing to disclose that some of the Company’s revenues and income were derived from an allegedly unlawful relationship with Enron. The allegations arise out of the FERC investigation of the power markets in the western United States during 2000 and 2001, which the Company previously settled with the FERC Trial Staff and certain intervening parties. On August 15, 2003, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On November 26, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the Company and three of the individual defendants and granted the motion to dismiss as to two individual defendants. On April 13, 2004, the Court granted a motion of the Company and the remaining individual defendants requesting permission to file an interlocutory appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding certain legal questions relating to the Court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint as to those defendants. On April 27, 2004, the Court entered an order staying the district court proceedings until the Fifth Circuit completed its review. On June 7, 2004, the U. S. Court of Appeals denied the appeal which automatically lifted the stay in the district court. While the Company believed the lawsuit was without merit, the parties reached a settlement to resolve this case.

The original complaint charges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the suit alleges that the Company issued materially false and misleading information by misrepresenting and/or omitting adverse facts concerning illegal arrangements with Enron Corporation and by artificially inflating revenues. Following an investigation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which stated that the Company was very likely involved in illegal transactions, the price of common stock dropped dramatically.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 4911
Sector: Utilities
Industry: Electric Utilities

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	El Paso Electric Company
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	EE
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.epelectric.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Jordan Roth, et al. v. El Paso Electric Company, et al.

COURT: W.D. Texas	DOCKET NUMBER: 03-CV-00004
JUDGE NAME: Hon. David Briones
DATE FILED: 01/03/2003	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/14/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/21/2002
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) , Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: El Paso Electric Company Securities Litigation

COURT: W.D. Texas	DOCKET NUMBER: 03-CV-00004
JUDGE NAME: Hon. David Briones
DATE FILED: 07/02/2003	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/14/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/21/2002
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York) One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) 212.868.1229, info@milbergweiss.com Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) , 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: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/02/2003
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/26/2003
Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action And Proposed Settlement, Motion For Attorneys’ Fees, And Settlement Fairness Hearing
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 07/01/2005
Proof of Claim and Release
Type: Other		Date on the document: 07/01/2005
Final Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/15/2005
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/06/2005

OTHER DOCUMENTS
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Richards, et al. v. El Paso Electric Co., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 05/21/2003

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

�