Case Page

 

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

Filing Date: June 01, 2001

According to the Company’s Form 10-Q For The Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2007, on December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the lower court's earlier decision certifying as class actions the six IPO Cases designated as "focus cases." Thereafter, the District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the IPO Cases pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition to the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc and resolution of the class certification issue. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited class in the District Court. Accordingly, the stay remains in place and the plaintiffs and Issuers have stated that they are prepared to discuss how the settlement might be amended or renegotiated to comply with the Second Circuit's decision. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six focus cases on or about August 14, 2007. The court has not yet set a deadline for the plaintiffs to file amended complaints in the other IPO lawsuits.

As summarized by Company’s FORM 10-Q For The Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2006, in August 2001, all of the IPO Cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York. In July 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to dismiss the IPO Cases filed by all of the Issuers (among others). In October 2002, the Court entered an order dismissing the Individuals from the IPO Cases without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect to the Individuals. In February 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Securities Act section 11 and Exchange Act section 10(b) claims against the Company. In June 2003, the Issuers reached a tentative settlement agreement with the plaintiffs that would result in, among other things, (a) the dismissal with prejudice of all claims in the IPO Cases against the Issuers and their officers and directors and (b) a guarantee from the insurers of the Issuers to the plaintiffs that, if the plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion from the Underwriters in the IPO Cases, the insurers would pay the difference between the actual recovery and $1 billion. In June 2004, the Company executed a final settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes, and granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement. On August 31, 2005, the Court reaffirmed class certification and preliminary approval of the modified settlement in a comprehensive Order. In addition, the Court approved the form of Notice to be sent to members of the settlement classes, which was published and mailed beginning November 15, 2005. On February 24, 2006, the Court dismissed litigation filed against certain underwriters in connection with the claims to be assigned to the plaintiffs under the settlement. The Court held a Final Settlement Fairness Hearing on the settlement on April 24, 2006. The final ruling is expected mid-2006. The Company does not expect the settlement to have a material impact on its operations or cash flow. In addition, the settlement is still subject to statutory notice requirements as well as final judicial approval.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about November 4, 1999, Wireless Facilities commenced an initial public offering of 4,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $15 per share (the ``Wireless Facilities IPO''). In connection therewith, Wireless Facilities filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus (the ``Prospectus''), with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) Credit Suisse had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Credit Suisse allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Wireless Facilities shares issued in connection with the Wireless Facilities IPO; and (ii) Credit Suisse had entered into agreements with customers whereby Credit Suisse agreed to allocate Wireless Facilities shares to those customers in the Wireless Facilities IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Wireless Facilities shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Construction Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: WFII
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-4779
JUDGE: Hon. Michael B. Mukasey
DATE FILED: 06/01/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/04/1999
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
  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. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-4779
JUDGE: Hon. Michael B. Mukasey
DATE FILED: 07/12/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/04/1999
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