According to the docket, on February 13, 2001, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ request for voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The case is dismissed.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of the federal securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5) against Teletek and certain of its officers and directors and others. The complaint is based in part on the indictments of certain former Teletek officers and directors and others by a federal grand jury on charges including securities fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and racketeering, and also on false and misleading statements regarding Teletek's operations and financial performance made by defendants during the Class Period. The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class Period defendants issued false and misleading press releases and annual and quarterly reports misrepresenting Teletek's condition and financial performance, its costs of operations, and its business prospects, while failing to disclose that the price and trading volume of Teletek stock was manipulated through an ongoing scheme of bribing stock brokers and promoters. The complaint also alleges that each of the defendants participated in the preparation of, and/or sanctioned the public statements and official filings while having access to, and willfully or recklessly disregarding, contradictory material non-public information. These false and misleading statements artificially inflated the price of Teletek stock. On November 7, 1996, when a federal grand jury announced the indictment of certain Teletek officers and directors in connection with these charges, Teletek's stock price plummeted. As a result, Teletek shareholders who had purchased the stock at artificially inflated prices suffered millions of dollars in damages.

NOTE: This action is related to another class action currently pending in the District of Nevada, Seoane, et al. v. Mills, et al., Case No. CV-S-97-01579-PMP (RJJ) (the "Related Action"). Further investigation during the pendency of this litigation uncovered evidence implicating additional parties, necessitating the filing of the Related Action.