According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2006, Airspan has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between Airspan, the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants and the individual defendants currently or formerly associated with those companies. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of Airspan and the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. Airspan would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims Airspan may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers’ settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference. On April 20, 2006, JPMorgan Chase and the plaintiffs reached a preliminary agreement for a settlement for $425 million. The JPMorgan Chase settlement has not yet been approved by the Court. However, if it is finally approved, then the maximum amount that the issuers’ insurers will be potentially liable for is $575 million. It is anticipated that any potential financial obligation of Airspan to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and related agreements will be covered by existing insurance. On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. Those modifications have been made. On March 20, 2006, the Underwriter Defendants submitted objections to the settlement to the Court. The Court held a hearing regarding those and other objections to the settlement at a fairness hearing on March 24, 2006, but has not yet issued a ruling. There is no assurance that the court will grant final approval to the settlement.
As disclosed by the same SEC filing, On and after July 23, 2001, three Class Action Complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. This action is being coordinated with approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and the Individual Defendants. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants. This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control person claims without prejudice, since these claims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against us, but allowed the Section 11 claim to proceed. On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions. In her Opinion, Judge Scheindlin noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. Judge Scheindlin determined that the class period for Section 11 claims is the period between the IPO and the date that unregistered shares entered the market. Judge Scheindlin also ruled that a proper class representative of a Section 11 class must (1) have purchased shares during the appropriate class period; and (2) have either sold the shares at a price below the offering price or held the shares until the time of suit. In two of the six cases, the class representatives did not meet the above criteria and therefore, the Section 11 cases were not certified. The Underwriter Defendants sought to appeal the class certification decision and the Second Circuit has accepted the appeal. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the Airspan case.
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 Airspan 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 Airspan shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.