Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/28/2002 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 27, 2000

According to the docket, on February 19, 2002, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones. According to the Order, on January 3, 2002, the Court entered an order dismissing without prejudice the Consolidated Amended Complaint and granting Plaintiffs twenty days to replead. As Plaintiffs have not replead, the Consolidated Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. On March 28, 2002, the Court entered the Judgment and the case was closed.

On October 27, 2000, the Court entered the Stipulation and Order consolidating several actions into a single, consolidated complaint captioned In re Teleglobe Inc. Securities Litigation, 00 civ. 5610. On November 21, 2000, the Court entered the Order appointing plaintiffs Joe D. Stewart and Barbara Murray as Lead Plaintiffs for the Class and appointing the law firms Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP and Cauley & Geller Lead Counsel. On February 9, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

The original Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between February 11, 1999 and July 29, 1999, thereby artificially inflating the price of Teleglobe common stock. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Teleglobe's profitability was plummeting as a result of back office problems in its newly-acquired Excel division, a severe price war in the North American
wholesale long distance market, shrinking profit margins in nearly all of its
business lines and adverse fluctuations in certain currency markets.
Nevertheless, as alleged in the complaint, throughout the Class Period,
defendants falsely represented that these problems were merely isolated events in order to permit Teleglobe to complete a huge $1 billion bond offering on July 20, 1999, which was necessary for Teleglobe to raise the capital it needed to finance its $5 billion global telephone network called GlobeSystem, which would facilitate Teleglobe's transition from a provider of slow growing/low margin telephone services to a provider of fast growing/higher margin data services. However, as alleged in the complaint, just eight days after Teleglobe sold $1 billion worth of bonds to unsuspecting investors, it announced that it would badly miss analysts' earnings estimates for the second quarter in a row. Upon this announcement, the price of Teleglobe common stock collapsed in value from $27 13/16 per share to $21 11/16 per share on huge trading volume which was many times more than Teleglobe's average daily trading volume.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: Canada

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TGO
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-05610
JUDGE: Hon. Barbara S. Jones
DATE FILED: 07/27/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/11/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/29/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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 ·
  2. Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy
    265 Llwyds Lane, Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy, FL 32963
    561.231.4202 ·
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  6. 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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 00-CV-05610
JUDGE: Hon. Barbara S. Jones
DATE FILED: 02/09/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/11/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/29/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley & Geller (Boca Raton)
    2255 Glades Road, #421A, Cauley & Geller (Boca Raton), FL 33431
    561.750.3000 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  3. The Emerson Firm
    2228 Cottondale Avenue, Suite 100, The Emerson Firm, AR 72202
    800.663.9817 501.907.2556 · epllp@emersonpoynter.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date