Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/08/2001 (Other)

Filing Date: May 22, 2000

According to the docket posted, on August 8, 2001, the Court entered the Stipulated Order of Dismissal. The action was dismissed with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and without prejudice to the putative class, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the FRCP with all parties bearing their respective costs. The case was closed.

The original complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by disseminating a materially false and misleading proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement"). In connection with seeking shareholder approval of a merger between GTE and Bell Atlantic, defendants disseminated a Proxy Statement representing that the dividend of the post merger entity will be nearly identical to the current dividend of GTE. This statement was false when made because the post merger entity will release quarterly dividends one month later than GTE's customary dividend releases. Because of the over one billion outstanding shares of GTE, the one month delay will result in a material loss of the time value of the dividends.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: GTE
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 #: 00-CV-03863
JUDGE: Hon. Harold Baer Jr.
DATE FILED: 05/22/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/28/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/29/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  2. Richard D. Kranich
    531 Main Street, Suite 407, Richard D. Kranich, NY 10044-0107
    212.608.8965 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 00-CV-03863
JUDGE: Hon. Harold Baer Jr.
DATE FILED: 04/16/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/28/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/29/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Chimicles & Tikellis LLP (Haverford)
    361 West Lancaster Avenue, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP (Haverford), PA 19041
    888.805.7848 610.649.3633 · mail@chimicles.com
  2. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date