According to the Company’s Form 10-K For the Fiscal Year Ended April 30, 2006, in 2003, the Company agreed to a Memorandum and Understanding, which reflects a settlement of these class actions as between the purported class action plaintiffs, Stratos and the former officers and directors, and the Company’s liability insurers. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the Company’s liability insurers will pay certain sums to the plaintiffs, with the amount dependent upon the plaintiffs’ recovery from the underwriters in the IPO class actions as a whole. The plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice their claims against Stratos and its former officers and directors, and Stratos will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that it may have against the underwriters. The plaintiffs filed with the court a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which, when granted, would lead to the mailing of class-wide notices of the settlement and a hearing date for approval of the settlement. The issuers, including Stratos, filed a statement joining in the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The underwriter defendants opposed the motion. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued its ruling granting the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the issuers, subject to certain changes to the bar order to be included as part of the settlement and to the notice to the class, and the Court recently approved the revisions made to the settlement and the notice pursuant to its prior order. The settlement still remains subject to final approval by the Court after notice of the settlement is sent to the class. A final fairness hearing on the settlement was held on April 24, 2006, at which time the Court took final approval of the settlement under advisement.
As summarized by the same SEC filing, Stratos and certain of its former directors and executive officers have been named as defendants in purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The complaints are substantially identical to numerous other complaints filed against other companies that went public during the time of Stratos’ IPO. The first of these lawsuits, filed on July 25, 2001, is captioned Kucera v. Stratos Lightwave, Inc. et al. No. 01 CV 6821. Three other similar lawsuits have also been filed against Stratos and certain of its former directors and executive officers. The complaints also name as defendants the underwriters for Stratos’ initial public offering. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the registration statement and prospectus from our June 26, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering. The complaints charge Stratos and several of its former directors and executive officers with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and/or Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) to the Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaints also allege claims solely against the underwriting defendants under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The complaint 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 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 Stratos Lightwave 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 Stratos Lightwave shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.