Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/03/1999 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: November 22, 1996

According to the docket, on November 3, 1999, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. The plaintiffs’ counsel was awarded $900,000 in fees and $42,219 in reimbursement of expenses. The case is closed.

As reported in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1999, CAI and certain individuals were named in six class action lawsuits alleging various violations of the federal securities laws filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The actions were consolidated into one lawsuit entitled IN RE CAI WIRELESS SYSTEMS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION (96-CV-1857), which is currently pending in the Northern District of New York against chairman and chief executive officer of CA; a former president, chief operating officer and director of CAI; and, a former president and director of CAI. The amended, consolidated complaint alleges a variety of violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Federal securities laws by CAI arising out of its alleged disclosure (or alleged omission from disclosure) regarding its Internet and other flexible use of MMDS spectrum, as well as its business relationship with Bell Atlantic and NYNEX. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act, during the specified class period, May 23, 1996 through December 6, 1996. CAI notified the carrier of its Directors' and Officers' Liability insurance policy, which is intended to cover not only CAI's officers and directors, but also CAI, itself, against claims such as those made in the securities lawsuit. The policy covers up to $5,000,000 of any covered liability, subject to a retention amount of $500,000. The securities lawsuit is in its preliminary stages. A scheduling conference was held on June 3, 1997, at which the briefing schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss was agreed upon among the parties. The defendants' motion to dismiss was heard by the Northern District of New York on October 17, 1997 and is still pending. While the motion is pending, all other deadlines affecting motions and discovery have been postponed. CAI's plan of reorganization provided no recovery to any holder of CAI's equity or to any holder of an equity-based claim, such as the claims made against CAI in the securities lawsuit. Upon the confirmation of CAI's plan of reorganization on September 30, 1998 and the October 14, 1998 consummation of the plan of reorganization, plaintiffs' claims against CAI in the securities lawsuit were discharged and released by order of the Bankruptcy Court. Furthermore, the securities lawsuit plaintiffs were enjoined from continuing their action against CAI. A Memorandum of Understanding outlining a settlement in the amount of $3,000,000 (all of which will be covered by the proceeds from the above-referenced liability insurance policy) has been executed by counsel to all parties. The parties have executed a settlement agreement and anticipate submitting such agreement to the court for final disposition of this action shortly.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Broadcasting & Cable TV
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CAWS
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: N.D. New York
DOCKET #: 96-CV-1857
JUDGE: Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn
DATE FILED: 11/22/1996
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/23/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/29/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lawrence G. Soicher
    342 Madison Avenue, 18th Floor , Lawrence G. Soicher, NY 10173
    212/883.8000 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  3. Schiffrin & Craig, Ltd.
    Three Bala Plaza East Suite 400, Schiffrin & Craig, Ltd., PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 ·
  4. Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna
    One Commerce Plaza, Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, NY 12260
    518.487.7600 518.487.7777 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. New York
DOCKET #: 96-CV-1857
JUDGE: Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn
DATE FILED: 04/14/1997
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/23/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/29/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
No Document Title Filing Date