Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/11/2000 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 06, 1999

According to the docket, on February 11, 2000, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick dismissing the case for the reason that plaintiff failed to file a second amended complaint by January 10, 2000. Earlier, on December 15, 1999, Judge Orrick issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing the plaintiff’s first amended complaint for failure to satisfy the pleading requirement for materiality and scienter under PSLRA. Also, on November 18, 1999, Judge Orrick granted the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On April 8, 1999, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges Airtouch stock had recently been on the rise on reports that the company was involved "in off-again and on-again talks with a number of potential acquirors." On January 3, 1999, the company issued a press release stating that Airtouch was in late-stage negotiations with Bell Atlantic (NYSE:BEL) "that could lead to a possible business combination between the two companies." Led to believe that the bidding war over AirTouch was over almost before it had begun, AirTouch shareholders began a huge sell-off of their AirTouch shares, with the stock closing down over $4, at $68 1/16, on January 4, 1999. However, what the January 3 press release failed to mention was that another bidder, Vodafone, was also engaged in negotiating to acquire AirTouch. Specifically, as was reported two days later, Vodafone had approached AirTouch about a possible merger, offering more than $45 billion, topping the estimated value of Bell Atlantic's offer and setting the stage for a possible battle over AirTouch. Once Vodafone's interest in acquiring AirTouch was belatedly disclosed, the price of the Company's shares soared $9.25 to close at $77-1/2 on January 5, 1999.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ATI
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 99-CV-0124
JUDGE: Hon. Dean D. Pregerson
DATE FILED: 01/06/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/04/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/04/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  2. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
    The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), NY 10126
    212.682.3025 212.682.3010 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 99-CV-1868
JUDGE: Hon. Dean D. Pregerson
DATE FILED: 07/19/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/04/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/04/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
    The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), NY 10126
    212.682.3025 212.682.3010 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date