Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/06/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 21, 2001

According to the Company’s Form 10-K, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, on July 31, 2003, the Company agreed, together with over three hundred other companies similarly situated, to settle with the Plaintiffs. A Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), along with a separate agreement and a performance bond of $1 billion issued by the insurers for these companies is a guarantee, allocated pro rata amongst all issuer companies, to the plaintiffs as part of an overall recovery against all defendants including the underwriter defendants who are not a signatory to the MOU. Any recovery by the plaintiffs against the underwriter defendants reduces amount to be paid by the issuer companies. The settlement documents are in process and it is anticipated that we will execute the settlement documents in 2005. This settlement will require approval of the members of the class of plaintiffs and the court.

According to the same SEC filing, in June 2001, three putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed against Accelerated Networks, certain of its then officers and directors and several investment banks that were underwriters of Accelerated Networks’ initial public offering. The cases, which have since been consolidated, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court appointed a lead plaintiff on April 16, 2002, and plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) on April 19, 2002. The Complaint was filed on behalf of investors who purchased Accelerated Networks’ stock between June 22, 2000 and December 6, 2000 and alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act against one or both of Accelerated Networks and the individual defendants. The claims were based on allegations that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in Accelerated Networks’ initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus for Accelerated Networks’ initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. These lawsuits are part of the massive “IPO allocation” litigation involving the conduct of underwriters in allocating shares of successful initial public offerings. The Company believes that over three hundred other companies have been named in more than one thousand similar lawsuits that have been filed by some of the same plaintiffs’ law firms. In October 2002, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the individual defendants without prejudice. On February 19, 2003 a motion to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants was heard and the court dismissed the 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 claims against Occam.

The original securities class action lawsuit charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus (the"Prospectus") that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The Prospectus was issued in connection with Accelerated Networks' IPO. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Accelerated Networks shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Accelerated Networks shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ACCLE
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-5644
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 06/21/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/23/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/08/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  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. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  4. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
  5. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
    The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), NY 10126
    212.682.3025 212.682.3010 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-5644
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 04/19/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/22/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  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. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  4. Sirota & Sirota LLP
    110 Wall Street 21st Floor, Sirota & Sirota LLP, NY 10005
    888.759.2990 212.425.9093 · Info@SirotaLaw.com
  5. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.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
No Document Title Filing Date