Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/27/2007 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: March 05, 2002

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."

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 is currently pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

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 (“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.

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 which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ATHQE
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 #: 02-CV-1765
JUDGE: Hon. Richard M. Berman
DATE FILED: 03/05/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/17/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/28/2001
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. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  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. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 02-CV-1765
JUDGE: Hon. Richard M. Berman
DATE FILED: 02/24/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/17/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/28/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lovell & Stewart LLP (New York)
    500 Fifth Avenue, Lovell & Stewart LLP (New York), NY 10110
    212.608.1900 212.719.4677 · sklovell@aol.com
  2. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date