Case Page

 

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

Filing Date: April 20, 2001

According to the FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, on December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision that six purported class action lawsuits containing allegations substantially similar to those asserted against the Company may not be certified as class actions due, in part, to the Appeals Court’s determination that individual issues of reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues common to the proposed classes. On January 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a petition seeking rehearing en banc of this ruling. On April 6, 2007 the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing of the Court’s December 5, 2006 ruling but noted that the plaintiffs remained free to ask the District Court to certify classes different from the ones originally proposed which might meet the standards for class certification that the Court of Appeals articulated in its December 5, 2006 decision. The plaintiffs have since moved for certification of different classes in the District Court, and that motion remains pending. In light of the Court of Appeals’ December 5, 2006 decision regarding certification of the plaintiffs’ claims, the District Court entered an order on June 25, 2007 terminating the proposed settlement between the plaintiffs and the issuers, including Avici. … In addition, Avici received a letter dated July 25, 2007 from a putative shareholder demanding that the Company investigate and prosecute a claim for alleged short-swing trading in violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the underwriters of its IPO and certain unidentified directors, officers and shareholders of the Company. Avici evaluated the demand and declined to prosecute the claim. On October 3, 2007, the putative shareholder commenced a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the lead underwriters of Avici’s IPO. Avici is named as a nominal defendant against whom the plaintiff currently seeks no recovery. No directors or officers of the Company are named as defendants in this action.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, twelve purported securities class action lawsuits were filed against Avici and one or more of Avici’s underwriters in Avici’s initial public offering, and certain officers and directors of Avici. The lawsuits alleged violations of the federal securities laws and were docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”). On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint (the “Complaint”), which superseded these twelve purported securities class action lawsuits, was filed in the Court. The Complaint is captioned “In re Avici Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation” (21 MC 92, 01 Civ. 3363 (SAS)) and names as defendants Avici, certain of the underwriters of Avici’s initial public offering, and certain of Avici’s officers and directors. … On July 15, 2002, Avici, together with the other issuers named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints against them on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed without prejudice all claims against the individual current and former officers and directors who were named as defendants in our litigation, and they are no longer parties to the lawsuit. On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and separate motions to dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants. In that ruling, the Court granted in part and denied in part those motions. As to the claims brought against Avici under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the Court dismissed all of these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to re-plead these claims against Avici. As to the claims brought under the registration provisions of the securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims as to Avici and as to substantially all of the other issuer defendants as well. The Court also denied the underwriter defendants’ motion to dismiss in all respects. In June 2003, Avici elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If the proposed settlement had been approved by the Court, it would have resulted in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against Avici and against any of the other issuer defendants who elected to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants. This proposed settlement was conditioned on, among other things, a ruling by the District Court that the claims against Avici and against the other issuers who had agreed to the settlement would be certified for class action treatment for purposes of the proposed settlement, such that all investors included in the proposed classes in these cases would be bound by the terms of the settlement unless an investor opted to be excluded from the settlement.

The original lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to recover damages. The complaint alleges that Avici and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing and
selling Avici common stock pursuant to the initial public offering without
disclosing to investors that at least two of the lead underwriters and one of
the other underwriters of the IPO had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors. In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead underwriters Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Lehman Brothers, Inc. and underwriter FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. allocated Avici shares to customers at the IPO price of $31.00 per share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at $31.00, the defendant underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The requirement that customers make
additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the price of Avici stock
rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive Avici's share price up to artificially high levels. This
artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both the underwriters
and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying Avici stock at the $31.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $102.00 during its first day of trading. The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of
1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the Registration
Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory approval for the Avici
offering contained material misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed above.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AVCI
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-03363
JUDGE: Hon. Charles S. Haight
DATE FILED: 04/20/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/28/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/20/2001
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. Edward J. Carreiro

    ·
  3. Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York)
    500 Fifth Avenue, Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York), NY 10110
    212.608.1900 212.719.4677 · info@lshllp.com
  4. Stamell & Schager, LLP
    One Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor, Stamell & Schager, LLP, NY 10006-1004
    212.566.4047 212.566.4061 · stamellschager@ssnyc.com
  5. 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-03363
JUDGE: Hon. Charles S. Haight
DATE FILED: 05/08/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/27/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
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 & 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
  3. 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 ·
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  5. Sirota & Sirota LLP
    110 Wall Street 21st Floor, Sirota & Sirota LLP, NY 10005
    888.759.2990 212.425.9093 · Info@SirotaLaw.com
  6. 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
  7. 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