Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 01/07/2009 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: May 29, 2002

On January 7, 2009 the judge entered an order granting the defendants' motions for dismissal with prejudice, ending the nearly seven year case.

According to an article dated February 29, 2008, on March 24, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that the court vacate that portion of its July 14, 2003 order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims based upon Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market. Southern Co. and the other defendants have opposed the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs have also stated that they intend to request that the court grant leave for them to amend the complaint to add allegations based upon claims asserted against Southern Co. in the MC Asset Recovery litigation. Under certain circumstances, Southern Co. will be obligated under its bylaws to indemnify the four current and/or former Southern Co. officers who served as directors of Mirant at the time of its initial public offering through the date of the spin-off and who are also named as defendants in this lawsuit.

According to the docket, the individual and third party defendents filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on March 21, 2007.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2005, on July 14, 2003, the district court dismissed the claims asserted by the plaintiffs based on the Company’s California business activities but allowed the case to proceed on the plaintiffs’ other claims. This action is stayed as to Mirant by the filing of its Chapter 11 proceeding. On November 19, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order staying this action also with respect to the other defendants to avoid the suit’s impeding Mirant’s ability to reorganize or having a negative effect upon Mirant’s assets. The Bankruptcy Court has modified the stay to allow the plaintiffs to proceed with discovery of documentary materials from Mirant and the other defendants. On December 11, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a proof of claim against the estate of Mirant, which was subsequently withdrawn on or about October 10, 2004. On August 29, 2005, the district court, at the request of the plaintiffs, dismissed Mirant as a defendant in this action.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, twenty lawsuits have been filed since May 2002 against Mirant and four of its officers alleging, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations and omissions to the investing public regarding Mirant’s business operations and future prospects during the period from January 19, 2001 through May 6, 2002 due to potential liabilities arising out of its activities in California during 2000 and 2001. The complaints seek unspecified damages, including compensatory damages, and the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. These suits have been consolidated into a single action. In November 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added as defendants Southern, the directors of Mirant immediately prior to its initial public offering of stock, and various firms that were underwriters for the initial public offering by the Company. In addition to the claims set out in the original complaint, the amended complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the registration statement and prospectus for the initial public offering of Mirant’s stock misrepresented and omitted material facts.

The original complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002. According to the complaint, Mirant reaped illegal profits in California by artificially manipulating energy prices through a variety of improper tactics. Mirant's fraudulent practices have resulted in investigations by both the Attorney General of the State of California, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as well as a number of lawsuits filed by California, and consumers. As now revealed, during the Class Period, while Mirant announced quarter-after-quarter of outstanding growth, and assured investors that problems in the California market had been properly accounted for, Mirant, in fact, failed to: (a) provide for the return of illegally obtained revenue, through a charge to earnings; (b) provide for professional fees associated with the investigations arising from the fraud through a charge to earnings; and (c) disclose the fact that the illegally obtained revenue was subject to forfeiture and that investigations surrounding the illegally obtained revenue would result in the expenditure of material amounts for legal and professional fees. As a result, defendants' Class Period financial statements were materially overstated, and failed to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Utilities
Industry: Electric Utilities
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MIR
Company Market: New York SE
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-01467
JUDGE: Hon. Clarence Cooper
DATE FILED: 05/29/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/19/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/06/2002
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. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
    P.O. Box 25438, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR), AR 72221-5438
    501.312.8500 501.312.8505 ·
  3. 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
  4. Dyer & Shuman, LLP
    801 E. 17th Avenue, Dyer & Shuman, LLP , CO 80218-1417
    303.861.3003 800.711.6483 · info@dyershuman.com
  5. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  6. Holzer Holzer & Cannon, LLP
    1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107 , Holzer Holzer & Cannon, LLP , GA 30338
    888.508.6832 · holzerlaw@aol.com
  7. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
    335 Central Avenue, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence), NY 11559
    516.374.0707 516.295.3473 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  8. 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 ·
  9. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
  10. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  11. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  12. 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
  13. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Georgia
DOCKET #: 02-CV-01467
JUDGE: Hon. Clarence Cooper
DATE FILED: 11/25/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/26/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/05/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Chitwood & Harley LLP (Atlanta)
    7945 East Paces Ferry Road, 1400 Resurgens Plaza, Chitwood & Harley LLP (Atlanta), GA 30326
    404.266.1650 · info@chitwoodlaw.com
  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
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton)
    5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33486
    561.361.5000 561.367.8400 ·
  5. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton)
    The Plaza, Suite 900, 5355 Town Center Road, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33486
    561.361.5000 ·
  6. Milberg Weiss LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  7. Zwerling, Schachter, Zwerling & Koppell LLP
    767 Third Avenue , Zwerling, Schachter, Zwerling & Koppell LLP, NY 10017
    ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date