Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/10/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 23, 2002

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, by Memorandum and Order filed on June 6, 2004, the court granted the Company’s motion and dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On June 7, 2004, a final judgment was entered dismissing the action as to all defendants. The time for appeal has expired without any appeal being filed, and therefore, this action is concluded.

As previously reported by the same SEC filing, between December 24, 2002 and February 14, 2003, four securities class actions were commenced against the Company and three of its executive officers. On April 4, 2003, the court consolidated the four actions into the single action identified above and appointed two lead plaintiffs. The Company received a consolidated amended complaint on July 3, 2003. The consolidated amended complaint added as defendants four directors who were members of the Company’s audit committee during the class period and Arthur Andersen LLP, the Company’s former independent auditors. By Memorandum and Order filed on January 12, 2004, the court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. The court held that the lead plaintiffs had failed to plead specific facts showing that the defendants knew facts, or had access to information, suggesting that RCC’s financial statements were materially false when they originally were issued. The court allowed the lead plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint. On February 9, 2004, the lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. The second consolidated amended complaint alleged essentially the same claims against the same defendants. RCC and the defendant directors moved for dismissal of the second consolidated amended complaint.

The original complaint charges Rural Cellular Corporation and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants are liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of conduct that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Rural Cellular common stock by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts. The scheme ( i) deceived the investing public regarding Rural Cellular's business, operations and management and the intrinsic value of Rural Cellular common stock, (ii) permitted Rural Cellular to sell and register debt securities valued at $300 million, and (iii) caused Plaintiff and members of the Class to purchase Rural Cellular common stock at artificially inflated prices.hat $.40 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RCCC
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: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 02-CV-4893
JUDGE: Hon. Paul A. Magnuson
DATE FILED: 12/23/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/06/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/13/2002
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. 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
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  5. 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
  6. Zimmerman Reed, LLP
    1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street , Zimmerman Reed, LLP, MN 55402
    612.341.0400 612.341.0844 · info@zimmreed.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 02-CV-4893
JUDGE: Hon. Paul A. Magnuson
DATE FILED: 03/05/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/07/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/12/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  3. Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law
    E-1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law, MN 55101
    800.465.1592 651.297.6543 · info@ralawfirm.com
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date