Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/20/1999 (Other)

Filing Date: June 30, 1999

According to the docket, on October 20, 1999, the Court entered the Settlement Order pursuant to Local Rule 111.1, dismissing the Civil Action with each party bearing its own costs unless otherwise agreed. The case was closed. On October 27, 1999, a joint motion was filed to reopen the case and on November 4, 1999, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Andre M. Davis, denying the joint motion. The Order further modified the Court’s previous Order of dismissal so that the action is dismissed without prejudice.

The lawsuit charges Condor and its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer with violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United States. The complaint alleges that defendant Hill issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning the Company's revenues during the Class Period. On June 9, 1999 the Company stunned the investment community by announcing that it would suffer a fall off in revenues as companies concentrated their software spending on year 2000 remediation projects. The Company also announced that due to the loss or delay of several contracts its revenues would fall significantly below analysts estimates. The Complaint alleges that this announcement of June 9, 1999 directly contradicted the Company's positive statements during the Class Period. Upon the release of this announcement the Company's stock price dropped approximately 50% on extraordinarily heavy trading volume.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CNDR
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: D. Maryland
DOCKET #: 99-CV-1952
JUDGE: Hon. Andre M. Davis
DATE FILED: 06/30/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/03/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/08/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  2. Lawrence G. Soicher
    342 Madison Avenue, 18th Floor , Lawrence G. Soicher, NY 10173
    212/883.8000 ·
No Document Title Filing Date