Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/19/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 25, 2004

The original complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants concealed problems with several independent power plant construction ventures for which TECO would ultimately be fully responsible, including the Company's full exposure to the demise of Enron Corporation and the vulnerability of the Company's large cash dividend, causing TECO shares to trade at artificially inflated levels, permitting defendants to sell over $4.2 million of their own personally held stock and to raise over $792 million selling equity securities in the capital markets. Then, through a series of events in late 2002 and early 2003, the Company's complex financing scheme began to unravel as several of these large projects and their liabilities were "put" to TECO, moving hundreds of millions of dollars of off-balance sheet debt onto TECO's balance sheet, resulting in the Company taking over a billion dollars in impairment charges and causing the price of its common stock to plummet from a Class Period high of over $28 per share on April 23, 2002 to below $13 per share on February 4, 2003, erasing hundreds of millions of dollars in market capitalization.

NOTE: TECO is a holding company for regulated utilities and other unregulated businesses.

As summarized by the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, after the consolidated Class Action Complaint brought by the “TECO Lead Plaintiff Group” in connection with TECO Energy’s Merchant power activities was dismissed without prejudice by the Court on Mar. 31, 2006, plaintiffs filed their further amended complaint to which TECO Energy and the individual defendants filed their motion to dismiss on Jul. 7, 2006 based on the same ground as raised in the prior motion, failure to plead loss causation. Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss, and on Oct. 10, 2006, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in part, leaving only one remaining issue dealing with public statements relating to the status of the contracting plan for the approximately 6,000 MWs of merchant power then under construction in several states outside of Florida. On Oct. 30, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Rule 54(b) motion asking the Court to enter a final judgment on the matters that were dismissed by its Oct. 10th order in order to appeal that portion of the order immediately, while maintaining the balance of the action in the district Court. The Court denied the Rule 54(b) motion. A mediation on the entire suit occurred on Feb. 16, 2007 whereby the company reached an agreement in principle to settle the shareholder securities class action lawsuit.

On July 12, 2007, District Court Judge James D. Whittemore granted the Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The proposed settlement was in the amount of $17,350,000.00, in cash. On October 19, 2007, the settlement fairness hearing was held and the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Approval of Plan of Allocation, and Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. The Court further entered the Final Judgment and Dismissal with Prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Utilities
Industry: Electric Utilities
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TE
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: M.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 04-CV-01948
JUDGE: Hon. Elizabeth A. Kovachevich
DATE FILED: 08/25/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/30/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/04/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca Raton)
    197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33432
    561.750.3000 56.750.3364 · info@lerachlaw.com
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@lerachlaw.com
  3. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: M.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 04-CV-01948
JUDGE: Hon. Elizabeth A. Kovachevich
DATE FILED: 05/10/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/30/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/04/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca Raton)
    197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33432
    561.750.3000 56.750.3364 · info@lerachlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date