Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/03/2001 (Other)

Filing Date: May 06, 1999

On October 3, 2001, the Court entered the Mandate of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the Judgment of the District Court.

According to a Court Decision by U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin dated January 3, 2000, plaintiffs brought an uncertified securities fraud class action against defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, for failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court noted that all securities fraud actions were subject to Rule 9(b) and that the Reform Act heightened Rule 9(b)s requirement for pleading scienter. Under the Reform Act, plaintiffs must "state with particularity facts giving rise to strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind," by showing motive or opportunity to commit fraud. The court found that plaintiffs failed to meet this heightened requirement because plaintiffs argued that defendants were motivated by a desire to suppress criticism and this desire was insufficient to allege scienter. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend.

The complaint alleges defendants MediaOne Group, Inc. and certain of its directors violated Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. @ 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. @ 240.10b-5, by fraudulently failing to disclose certain information in connection with a publicly announced, proposed merger between MediaOne and Comcast Corporation. Plaintiff brings an additional claim against the individual defendants for controlling person liability pursuant to Section 20 of the Exchange Act.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: UMG
Company Market: New York SE
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 99-CV-3306
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 05/06/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/31/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/22/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2500, Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco), CA 94105
    415.538.3725 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 99-CV-3306
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 01/02/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/31/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/22/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2500, Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco), CA 94105
    415.538.3725 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date