Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 01/21/2000 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 19, 1996

According to the docket, on January 12, 1999, a Stipulation of Settlement was filed, and on January 14, 1999, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik certifying the class, preliminarily approving the settlement and approving the form and manner of the notice. On January 21, 2000, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice,

As reported in the Company's Form 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 1997, in April 1997, the Board of Directors of the Company unanimously approved the terms of a settlement of all claims against the Company and all of the individual defendants. The settlement, which is subject to Court approval and which admits no liability or fault, provides for the payment of $1.0 million in cash and the issuance of approximately 420,000 shares of the Company's common stock, subject to adjustments depending upon the fair market value of the stock on the date that the settlement is approved by the Court.

Earlier, on November 7, 1997, Midcom and three of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, PacNet, Adval and Cel-Tech, filed the Petitions and are currently operating their respective businesses as debtors-in-possession pursuant to Sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code and subject to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.

An amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") was filed on July 8, 1996. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the registration statement and prospectus relating to the Company's initial public offering contained false and misleading statements concerning the Company's billing software and financial condition. The Amended Complaint further alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants inflated the price of the Common Stock by intentionally or recklessly making material misrepresentations or omissions which deceived the public about the Company's financial condition and prospects. The Amended Complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act as well as various state laws, and seeks damages in an unstated amount. Defendant's motion to dismiss was filed on August 7, 1996. In November 1996, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice and the plaintiffs refiled a second amended complaint on December 19, 1996 (the "Second Amended Complaint"). In January 1997, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (the "Second Motion to Dismiss") claiming failure by plaintiffs to plead with particularity and failure to plead facts establishing scienter, both as required under the Exchange Act, and failure to establish tracing to the prospectus relating to the Company's initial public offering, as required under the Securities Act. The Second Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the registration statement and prospectus relating to the Company's initial public offering contained false and misleading statements concerning the Company's billing software and financial condition. The Second Amended Complaint further alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants inflated the price of the Common Stock by intentionally or recklessly making material misrepresentations or omissions which deceived the public about the Company's financial condition and prospects. The Second Amended Complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act as well as various state laws, and seeks damages in an unstated amount. All discovery proceedings are stayed until defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss is acted on by the Court.

The original complaint named the Company and two of its directors and the Company's former chief financial officer as defendants. The lawsuit alleges violations of various securities laws arising from alleged misstatements and omissions in the Company's initial public offering and subsequent public filings. On April 23rd, a second shareholder joined the case. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages of an undetermined amount. The Complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's Common Stock during the period beginning on July 6, 1995, the date of the Company's initial public offering, and ending on March 4, 1996 (the "Class period").

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MCCI
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: W.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 96-CV-0614
JUDGE: Hon. Carolyn R. Dimmick
DATE FILED: 04/19/1996
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/06/1995
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/04/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Hagens Berman & Mitchell
    2425 East Camelback Road; Suite 620, Hagens Berman & Mitchell, AZ 85016
    602.840.5900. 602.840.3012 · info@hagens-berman.com
  2. Rohan, Goldfarb & Shapiro, P.S.
    1601 One Union Square 600 University Street , Rohan, Goldfarb & Shapiro, P.S., WA 98101-3112
    206.223.1600 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: W.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 96-CV-0614
JUDGE: Hon. Carolyn R. Dimmick
DATE FILED: 12/19/1996
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/06/1995
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/04/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Former New York)
    1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Former New York), NY 10019
    212.554.1400 212.554.1444 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Hagens Berman, LLP
    1301 Fifth Avenue Suite 2900, Hagens Berman, LLP, WA 98101
    206.623.7292 · info@hagens-berman.com
  3. Rohan, Goldfarb & Shapiro, P.S.
    1601 One Union Square 600 University Street , Rohan, Goldfarb & Shapiro, P.S., WA 98101-3112
    206.223.1600 ·
No Document Title Filing Date