Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/03/2002 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 04, 2001

The original Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by, among other things, issuing false and misleading statements regarding XO's financial condition as well as its present and future business operations. In particular, the Complaint alleges that defendants misled the investing public concerning the Company's ability to finance its business operations until it becomes cash- flow positive. Throughout the Class Period, defendants stated that XO had sufficient cash to survive at least into mid 2003 without the need for further financing. These statements were false, and on November 29, 2001, defendants announced a transaction where the shareholders' equity was destroyed in exchange for a cash infusion of $800 million. Trading in the Company's stock was immediately halted.

According to the docket, on April 18, 2002, XO Communications filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On May 31, 2002, the court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema granting the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The action was dismissed with prejudice and the case closed. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the order granting the motion to dismiss the action was later denied on June 17, 2002.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: XOXO
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-01832
JUDGE: Hon. Claude M. Hilton
DATE FILED: 12/04/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/04/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/29/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran
    1050 30th Street, NW, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, DC 20007
    202.337.8000 202.337.8090 · contact@ftllaw.com
  2. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: E.D. Virginia
DOCKET #: 01-CV-01832
JUDGE: Hon. Claude M. Hilton
DATE FILED: 03/29/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/04/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/29/2001
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
No Document Title Filing Date