Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 01/22/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: September 22, 2000

On July 20, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. The proposed settlement fund is in the amount of $18,000,000. On July 31, 2006, the Court entered the Order preliminarily approving the class action settlement. On January 22, 2007, the Court entered Order awarding attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses. Further that day, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement.

As summarized by the co-lead counsel’s website, the court appointed BLB&G clients Alabama Retirement Systems and Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund, City of Chicago as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and BLB&G was appointed Co-Lead Counsel for the Class. In August 2004, the court denied in part and granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The firm has pursued discovery of the defendants and of third parties. On July 18, 2005, the court granted the Lead Plaintiffs permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint identified numerous high level former ICG employees who specifically linked Defendants, ICG’s CEO and former ICG President and COO, to fraudulent line count inflation and hiding the truth about ICG's network problems. On February 7, 2006, Defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint was denied as to all claims against ICG’s former ICG President and COO and as to all claims against ICG’s CEO except the Section 10(b) claim for line count inflation. The firm is pursuing further discovery on the upheld claims.

The original complaint maintains that ICG executives misled investors during the Class Period, touting the company while failing to disclose severe customer-service issues that included network outages, equipment failures and overall technical problems. In fact, some of ICG Communications’ major customers notified the company during the Class Period that they planned to reduce their service commitments; others said they intended to terminate their contracts unless the technical issues were resolved. Despite these persistent issues, ICG made several statements publicizing significant growth in both revenue and network capacity. When the truth about the customer service issues emerged, ICG Communications’ stock plummeted to $1.65 a share on September 18, 2000 from a Class Period high of $39 on March 27, 2000.

NOTE: On November 14, 2000, ICG and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. ICG’s Modified Plan of Reorganization was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on October 10, 2002, and its liabilities related to claims were discharged in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code. ICG would be named as a defendant but for the discharge included in the Modified Plan of Reorganization.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ICGXQ
Company Market: NASDAQ
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: D. Colorado
DOCKET #: 00-CV-01864
JUDGE: Hon. Daniel B. Sparr
DATE FILED: 09/22/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/20/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/18/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. 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
  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. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  5. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  6. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
    1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego), PA 19103
    215.496.0300 215.496.6611 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Colorado
DOCKET #: 00-CV-01864
JUDGE: Hon. Daniel B. Sparr
DATE FILED: 07/18/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/09/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/18/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
    One Liberty Square, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), MA 02109
    617.542.8300 ·
  2. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY)
    1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY), NY 10019
    212.554.1400 212.554.1444 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  3. Dyer & Schuman LLP
    801 East 17th Avenue, Dyer & Schuman LLP, CO 80218
    303.861.3003 ·
No Document Title Filing Date