Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 04/10/2008 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: May 13, 2002

According to a press release dated September 11, 2008, a settlement was reached in a consolidated class-action lawsuit over a secondary offering of AirGate PCS, Inc., in December 2001, which named Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., as a defendant.

On September 29, 2006, a Notice of Settlement and Withdrawal of Pending Motions was filed. According to the Notice, the parties will now prepare a
stipulation of settlement and accompanying exhibits for submission to the Court.

According to Alamosa Holding, Inc.'s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, on September 30, 2005, the Court issued an opinion and order (the "Order") ruling on these motions. As to the AirGate Defendants, the Court (a) dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and (b) also dismissed the remaining Section 11 and Section 15 claims as to five of the six alleged misstatements pled in the Consolidated Complaint, while declining to dismiss the claims related to allegation (v) above, concerning the iPCS network build-out. As to the Underwriter Defendants, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Order permitted plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint, which plaintiffs did on October 19, 2005 (the "Second Amended Complaint").

As reported by the same SEC filing, after initially denying motions for appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel, the Court granted a modified renewed motion for appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel on August 17, 2004. Pursuant to a consent scheduling order, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on October 15, 2004, naming the same defendants (the "Consolidated Complaint"). On December 30, 2004, the AirGate Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

The original Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market in the Company's December 14, 2001 Prospectus, thereby artificially inflating the price of Airgate securities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Prospectus used by defendants to sell $200 million worth of Airgate stock was false and misleading because, among other things, it failed to disclose: (a) that in order to complete an effective integration of iCPS, drastic changes would have to be made to AirGate's distribution channels and as a result, the integration of iCPS would take longer than expected and sales to new subscribers would be significantly reduced; (b) sales forces in the acquired iCPS markets would require extensive restructuring, which would negatively impact productivity, resulting in a lower than expected number of new subscribers in the iCPS markets; and (c) that the "churn," or "turnover" rate for customers would increase as a result of an increase in the amount of sub-prime credit quality customers the Company added from its merger with iCPS.

NOTE: In December 2004, Alamosa Holdings, Inc. purchased AirGate PCS, Inc.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PCSA
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: N.D. Georgia
DOCKET #: 02-CV-1291
JUDGE: Hon. Charles A. Moye Jr.
DATE FILED: 05/13/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/14/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/13/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, 42 Street)
    60 East 42 Street, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, 42 Street), NY 10021
    212.687.6655 ·
  2. Chitwood & Harley LLP
    1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Chitwood & Harley LLP, GA 30309
    888.873.3999 404.873.4476 · info@chitwoodlaw.com
  3. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  4. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  5. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  6. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Georgia
DOCKET #: 02-CV-1291
JUDGE: Hon. Charles A. Moye Jr.
DATE FILED: 10/19/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/14/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/13/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, 42 Street)
    60 East 42 Street, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, 42 Street), NY 10021
    212.687.6655 ·
  2. Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta)
    2300 Promenade II; 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta), GA 30309
    888.873.3999 404.876.4476 · info@chitwoodlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date