AT&T Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate. It is the world's largest telecommunications company and the largest provider of mobile telephone services in the U.S.
The original action charges that Defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, statements which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.
As summarized by the March 24, 2006 Opinion and Order, on November 7, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action Complaint asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against numerous Defendants. On February 24, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action Complaint, which added a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act alleging misrepresentations and omissions in At Home’s May 26, 2000 Proxy Statement. That claim, and certain control person claims, were dismissed by order dated August 9, 2004.
By order dated March 10, 2005, a class was certified of all persons and entities that purchased the common stock of At Home during the period March 28, 2000 through September 28, 2001. On May 31, 2005, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended consolidated Complaint to comply with recently decided cases addressing the issue of loss causation, and to extend the class period back to November 9, 1999. At a conference on July 8, 2005, Plaintiffs were directed to file a proposed third amended Complaint (the PTAC) setting forth their best possible allegations of loss causation. On August 5, 2005, Plaintiffs moved to file the PTAC, which asserts claims under Section 10(b) against Defendants AT&T, Armstrong, McEachen, Noski, Somers and Petrillo, as well as control person claims against all Defendants under Section 20(a) premised on primary violations of Section 10(b) by At Home. Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended Complaint, and opposed the filing of the second and proposed third amended Complaints. They argued, among other things, that AT&T’s scheme was not in connection with the purchase or sale of any security, that Plaintiffs have not adequately pled loss causation, and that no fraudulent acts took place during the proposed extended class period.
On March 24, 2006, the Court entered the Opinion and Order signed by U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended Complaint, denying the Plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended Complaint, and further denying the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended Complaint. That day, the Clerk’s Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff. All pending motions were dismissed as moot. On March 31, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal which was then pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
According to the docket, on September 4, 2007 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the case. The mandate of the appeals judge stated "the plaintiffs here have failed to allege that the AT&T defendants' conversion scheme was in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, and that any misrepresentation associated with the scheme was the cause of the plaintiffs' loss under the standard set forth in 'Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo."
