Level 3 Communications, Inc. - 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

Level 3 Communications, Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated February 3, 2009, the complaint charges Level 3 and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Level 3 engages in the communications business in North America and Europe. The Company's network and Internet services include transport services, high speed Internet protocol services, dedicated Internet access, virtual private network services, colocation services and dark fiber services. Between December 2005 and January 2007, Level 3 also acquired several companies. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Level 3's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate that: (1) the Company's efforts to integrate the numerous acquired companies were not going well; (2) specifically, the Company was experiencing an increase in service activation times, which was negatively impacting the Company's service installation intervals and rate of revenue growth; (3) the Company was also experiencing challenges in its service management processes that were resulting in longer response times to resolve customers' network service issues; (4) steps taken by the Company to remedy the problems were not working, and actually were further complicating the issues and making them worse; (5) as a result of the above, the Company did not have adequate provisioning capability to convert its increasing sales, or signed orders, into revenue generating service; (6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (7), as a result of the above, the statements made by the Company and management during the Class Period lacked a reasonable basis. On October 23, 2007, Level 3 shocked the market when it revealed that the Company was having extensive difficulties integrating the systems and customer-service processes of the numerous companies it had acquired, and these difficulties were causing an increase in service activation times. Moreover, Level 3 revised downward the Company's previously issued guidance for fourth quarter 2007 and full year 2008. On this news, shares of Level 3 declined $1.04 per share, or approximately 24%, to close on October 23, 2007 at $3.28 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On May 5, 2009, Judge Philip A. Brimmer approved the appointment of William A. Poppo as lead plaintiff. On May 19, 2009, Judge Brimmer approved lead plaintiff William A. Poppos selection of lead and liaison counsel is approved. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Johnson Bottini, LLP shall serve as co-lead counsel and Dyer & Berens LLP shall serve as liaison counsel. On June 29, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss.

On March 23, 2010, a Minute Order denying as moot the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was entered by the Court.

On the same day, an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws and Jury Demand against the Defendants.

On December 13, 2010, an Order was issued by the Court, dismissing with prejudice, the Plaintiffs’ amended consolidated class action complaint.

On January 14, 2011, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the judgment entered in this action on December 16, 2010, including the order of dismissal entered on December 10, 2010.

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

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Level 3 Communications, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	LVLT
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.level3.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Adam Skaggs, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al.

COURT: D. Colorado	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-00200
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Philip A. Brimmer
DATE FILED: 02/02/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/08/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/23/2007
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles) 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310.201.915, (fax) 310. 201-916, info@glancylaw.com Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA, 19020 (voice) 215.638.4847, (fax) 215.638.4867, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws And Jury Demand
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/02/2009
Minute Order
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 05/19/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In re Level 3 Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: D. Colorado	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-00200
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 06/29/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/17/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/23/2007
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, info@csgrr.com/ Johnson Bottini, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1400, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.230.0063, (fax) 619.230.0063, contactus@johnsonbottini.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws And Jury Demand
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/29/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/21/2009
Minute Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/23/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/07/2010
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/10/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 12/10/2010
Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 12/18/2010
Plaintiffs' Notice Of Appeal
Type: Notice of Appeal		Date on the document: 01/14/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/01/2011
In Re: Level 3 Communications Inc. Securities Litigation
Type: Other		Date on the document: 02/06/2012
In re: Level 3 Communications
Type: Other		Date on the document: 02/28/2012

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: John S. Burke et al v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/03/2009
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws And Jury Demand
Case Name and/or Number: Marilyn A. Ides, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/12/2009
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws And Jury
Case Name and/or Number: Jennifer Ross, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/19/2009
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Erisa
Case Name and/or Number: D. Edward Walter, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/24/2009

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

�