Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 09/11/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 10, 2002

By the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson on September 11, 2006, the Court grants the motion for attorney fees, certifies the case as a class action and approves the settlement. The case is now closed.

According to a press release dated May 20, 2006, Tellium, an Oceanport maker of optical switches before it was bought out in 2003, will pay $5.5 million to settle a class-action securities fraud case. The proposed settlement was filed in federal court yesterday and a hearing is set for June 16 in Camden. Shareholders sued Tellium, now part of California-based Zhone Technologies, alleging the company and executives lied about its financial condition during the time of its 2001 initial public offering.

As summarized by Zhone Technologies, Inc.’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 , on various dates between approximately December 10, 2002 and February 27, 2003, numerous class action securities complaints were filed against Tellium in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On May 19, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint representing all of the actions was filed. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Tellium and its then-current directors and executive officers, and its underwriters, violated the Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements or omissions in its registration statement prospectus relating to the securities offered in the initial public offering. The complaint further alleges that these parties violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by acting recklessly or intentionally in making the alleged misstatements and/or omissions in connection with the sale of Tellium stock. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, costs and expenses incurred in connection with the actions and equitable relief as may be permitted by law or equity. On March 31, 2004, the court granted Tellium’s and the underwriters’ motions to dismiss the complaint and allowed the plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint. On May 14, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and amended complaint. On June 25, 2004, Zhone, as Tellium’s successor-in-interest, and the underwriters again moved to dismiss the complaint. On June 30, 2005, the court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs’ claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but denied the motions to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims under the Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of that portion of the court’s June 30, 2005 decision dismissing their claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On August 26, 2005, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.

The original complaint charges Tellium, Inc. 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 failed to disclose that: (i) Qwest agreed to purchase Tellium products, in return, Qwest executives received lucrative shares of Tellium in conjunction with its IPO, a fact that was not disclosed to the public; (ii) Qwest did not need the large number of switches they had ordered from Tellium and, in fact, had no strong obligation to purchase more switches in the future and could avoid their contractual obligations with relative ease; (iii) after issuing positive statements about the Company's financial standing, defendants Bunting and Glassmeyer unloaded large amount of their shares (iv) and because the Company issued false and misleading statements about Tellium's business and the Qwest contract, the Company's shares have been traded at artificially inflated prices, as high as $29 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TELM
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. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 02-CV-5878
JUDGE: Hon. Mary L. Cooper
DATE FILED: 12/10/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/17/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/01/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  3. Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC (Newark)
    Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC (Newark), NJ 07102-5003
    973.623.3000 ·
  4. 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 ·
  5. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 02-CV-5878
JUDGE: Hon. Mary L. Cooper
DATE FILED: 05/14/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/17/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/01/2002
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. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (New York)
    575 Lexington Avenue, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (New York), NY 10022
    212.446.2383 212.446.2350 ·
  3. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  4. Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC (Newark)
    Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC (Newark), NJ 07102-5003
    973.623.3000 ·
  5. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date