Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/21/2002 (Other)

Filing Date: July 27, 2000

According to the Company’s Form 10-K For The Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2001, on January 8, 2002, plaintiffs filed a protective notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, wherein they appealed the District Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on June 14, 2001, and its December 20, 2001 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery. On February 2, 2002, the parties filed a stipulation with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whereby all parties agreed to dismiss the appeal with prejudice. On February 4, 2002, the parties also filed a stipulation of dismissal of the case with prejudice in the District Court. On February 7, 2002, the District Court issued its order dismissing the case with prejudice, and on February 14, 2002, the Court of Appeals issued its order dismissing the appeal with prejudice.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, on November 9, 2000, the Court entered an order consolidating the several cases, appointing the lead stockholder-plaintiff, and appointing lead stockholders-plaintiffs’ counsel to prosecute the litigation. On February 13, 2001, plaintiffs filed their First Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Company common stock during the period April 14, 2000, through June 21, 2000. In their consolidated complaint, plaintiffs asserted violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, arising out of various alleged misstatements and omissions in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year 1999, its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000, and in other information made publicly available by the Company, and, further, claimed that plaintiffs and the purported class suffered damages as a result thereof. Such alleged misstatements and omissions were claimed to relate to the Company’s trading activities in wholesale energy markets, the Company’s risk management policies and procedures with respect thereto, and the Company’s trading losses in the second quarter of 2000. The plaintiffs requested, among other things, compensatory damages in unspecified amounts and other relief as the Court may deem proper. On March 29, 2001, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint, which was granted by the Court on June 14, 2001 without prejudice to allow the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend the complaint to seek to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court.

The original class action lawsuit charged Avista and certain of its officers with violations of the federal securities laws. Specifically, plaintiffs have brought claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, despite assurances from Avista that it would only enter into derivative contracts as a means to “limit the exposure to market risk,” the Company covertly entered into huge amounts of forward contracts in an undisclosed gamble that electricity prices would decrease in the future. Unfortunately, the price of electricity skyrocketed, resulting in staggering losses on these forward contracts. When the Company disclosed these massive losses, and the impact they would have on the financial position of the Company, the Company’s stock price plummeted. On the day prior to the start of the Class Period, Avista shares closed trading at $37 11/16 per share. After Avista was finally forced to publicly acknowledge the extent of the losses resulting from this improper speculation on June 21, 2000, Avista’s shares closed trading at $19 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Utilities
Industry: Electric Utilities
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AVA
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: E.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 00-CV-262
JUDGE: Hon. Robert H. Whaley
DATE FILED: 07/27/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/07/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/21/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
    One Liberty Square, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), MA 2109
    617.542.8300 617.230.0903 · info@bermanesq.com
  2. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  3. Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA)
    225 Broadway, Suite 1900, Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92010
    619.702.7350 619.702.7351 ·
  4. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA)
    701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA), WA 98014
    206.521.0080 206.521.0166 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  5. Hagens Berman & Mitchell
    2425 East Camelback Road; Suite 620, Hagens Berman & Mitchell, AZ 85016
    602.840.5900. 602.840.3012 · info@hagens-berman.com
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
COURT: E.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 00-CV-262
JUDGE: Hon. Robert H. Whaley
DATE FILED: 02/13/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/14/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/21/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley & Geller (Boca Raton)
    2255 Glades Road, #421A, Cauley & Geller (Boca Raton), FL 33431
    561.750.3000 ·
  2. Hagens Berman & Mitchell
    2425 East Camelback Road; Suite 620, Hagens Berman & Mitchell, AZ 85016
    602.840.5900. 602.840.3012 · info@hagens-berman.com
  3. 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
  4. Richard D. Kranich
    531 Main Street, Suite 407, Richard D. Kranich, NY 10044-0107
    212.608.8965 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date