Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/18/2002 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 12, 2001

By the closing Order, dated November 15, 2002, from U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the case was settled and dismissed with prejudice.

On September 18, 2001, the District Court appointed Glancy & Binkow Lead Counsel to prosecute this case on behalf of ECI investors. In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs alleged ECI fraudulently engaged in a premature revenue recognition scheme, which violated both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and ECI’s own accounting policies. Following the District Court’s denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, plaintiff began extensive discovery. According to the Notice of Pendency and Settlement of the Class action, the parties reached an agreement on or about November 18, 2002 and established a Settlement Fund of $21.75 million in cash.

According to the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs alleged ECI fraudulently engaged in a premature revenue recognition scheme, which violated both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and ECI’s own accounting policies. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants ECI Telecom Ltd. and certain of its officers and directors violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market concerning, inter alia, ECI's reported revenue for the first, second and third quarters of 2000. On Feb. 14, 2001, the Company announced that it expected to move $38 million in revenue from 1999's financial statement to 2000, and $61 million from 2000 to 2001.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: Israel

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ECIL
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: E.D. Virginia
DOCKET #: 01-CV-913
JUDGE: Hon. T. S. Ellis III
DATE FILED: 06/12/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/02/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/14/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA)
    701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA), WA 98014
    206.521.0080 206.521.0166 · lawinfo@cmht.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: E.D. Virginia
DOCKET #: 01-CV-913
JUDGE: Hon. T. S. Ellis III
DATE FILED: 10/05/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/02/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/14/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4699 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. Lionel Z. Glancy
    1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 308, Lionel Z. Glancy, CA 90067
    310.201.9150 ·
No Document Title Filing Date