Case Page

 

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

Filing Date: June 12, 2001

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For The Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2006, in June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. The Company understands that virtually all of the other non-bankrupt issuer defendants have also elected to participate in this proposed settlement. If ultimately approved by the court, this proposed settlement would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and against the other issuer defendants who have 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. The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants. The proposed settlement provides that the insurers of the participating issuer defendants will guarantee that the plaintiffs in the cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will recover at least $1 billion. If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the plaintiffs under the proposed settlement will be satisfied. In addition, the Company and the other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that the participating issuer defendants may have against the underwriters of their IPOs. Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon obtaining approval by the court. On September 1, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and directed that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to class members. Thereafter the court held a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006, at which objections to the proposed settlement were heard. After the fairness hearing, the court took under advisement whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, during the period from June 12 to September 13, 2001, four purported securities class action lawsuits were filed against Telaxis Communications Corporation, a predecessor company to Terabeam, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated amended complaint which supersedes the individual complaints originally filed. These lawsuits have been assigned along with approximately 1,000 other lawsuits making substantially similar allegations against approximately 300 other publicly-traded companies and their public offering underwriters to a single federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for consolidated pre-trial purposes. On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, Telaxis filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint against the issuers on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants. The underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims against them. In October 2002, the court approved a stipulation dismissing without prejudice all claims against the Telaxis directors and officers who had been defendants in the litigation. On February 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the separate motions to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and the underwriter defendants. The court granted in part and denied in part the issuer defendants' motions. The court dismissed, with prejudice, all claims brought against Telaxis under the anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws. The court denied the motion to dismiss the claims brought under the registration provisions of the securities laws (which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded) as to Telaxis and as to substantially all of the other issuer defendants. The court denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus (the"Prospectus") that contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The Prospectus was issued in connection with the Telaxis 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 Telaxis 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 Telaxis shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TLXS
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-05267
JUDGE: Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman
DATE FILED: 06/12/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/01/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Beatie & Osborne LLP
    599 Lexington Avenue, 42nd Floor, Beatie & Osborne LLP, NY 10022
    212.888.9000 212.888.9664 ·
  2. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-05267
JUDGE: Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman
DATE FILED: 05/10/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/01/2000
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