Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/08/2003 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 14, 2001

According to the docket, on February 19, 2003, the Court issued the Memorandum Opinion and Order signed by U.S. District Judge David C Godbey granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On May 8, 2003, the Court entered the Judgment, pursuant to FRCP 58 and the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed on February 19.

As previously disclosed by the Company’s FORM 10-Q For The Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2002, in March and April of 2001, the Company was served with five lawsuits against it and the Company’s chairman, seeking to recover an unspecified amount of monetary damages allegedly caused by the Company's alleged fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of the Company's common stock through a series of alleged false and misleading statements to the market and alleged material omissions in violation of federal and state securities laws. Four of the lawsuits are filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and seek class action status on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock on the open market during the period of December 29, 2000, through February 20, 2001. The fifth lawsuit was filed in the Dallas County Court of Law on behalf of a single stockholder that purchased the Company's common stock on the open market during the same time period. The claims against the Company in the fifth lawsuit have been dismissed without prejudice. The Company believes the lawsuits have no merit. During the pendency of the Chapter 11 case, plaintiffs have been stayed under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code from pursuing the claims alleged in the lawsuits against the Company. The remaining defendant, the Company’s chairman, has filed a motion to dismiss but no discovery has yet occurred.

The original complaint alleges defendants made misleading statements concerning a shelf registration of 8.5 million shares of Weblink's common stock, artificially inflated the stock price. The suit alleges that Beletic knew the sale of the stock would not meet the capital needs of the company. When that information was made public during a Feb. 21 conference call, the suit claims, the result was a one-day 42-percent drop in the company's share price. At the end of last year, the company announced the shelf registration along with an amendment to its credit facility that allows the company to borrow up to $80 million, with the potential for another $20 million.

NOTE: On May 23, 2001, WebLink filed for relief under Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). Accordingly, under the stay provisions provided by §362 of the Bankruptcy Code, WebLink is longer a party to this action.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: WLNK
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-00498
JUDGE: Hon. Sam A. Lindsay
DATE FILED: 03/14/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/29/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/20/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Caddell & Chapman

    713.751.0400 ·
  2. 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 ·
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  4. 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 #: 01-CV-00498
JUDGE: Hon. Sam A. Lindsay
DATE FILED: 04/25/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/29/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/20/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Caddell & Chapman

    713.751.0400 ·
  3. Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP
    11311 Arcade Drive - Suite 201, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP, AR 72212
    501.312.8500 ·
  4. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  5. 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
  6. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  7. Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C.

    800.993.3233 · sfprpc@op.net
  8. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  9. 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