Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 07/01/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 19, 2001

According to the Company's Form 10-Q for the three month period ended June 30, 2004, following Accelerated Networks’ April 17, 2001 announcement that it would restate its financial results, seven putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The cases were consolidated by the Honorable Judge Ronald S. W. Lew as In Re Accelerated Networks Securities Litigation in a court order dated June 15, 2001. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on October 30, 2001. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding Accelerated Networks’ financial condition and prospects during the period of June 22, 2000 through April 17, 2001 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”) and that the registration statement and prospectus issued by defendants in connection with our June 23, 2000 initial public offering contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”). Accelerated Networks previously filed two motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaints. The plaintiffs opposed the motions and a hearing on each motion took place. At both hearings, the Court granted the motion as to the plaintiffs’ 1934 Act claims, and denied the motion as to plaintiffs’ 1933 Act claims. In each instance the plaintiffs were given 30 days’ leave to amend their 1934 Act claims. The plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The plaintiffs opposed the motion and a hearing took place on February 3, 2003. At that hearing, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the 1934 Act claims. Subsequently, the parties agreed to enter into mediation that occurred on October 1, 2003. At the mediation the parties and the Company’s insurance carrier reached a tentative settlement that is subject to Court and shareholder class approval, whereby the insurance carrier paid the entire $8 million settlement, leaving no obligation for the Company. The members of the shareholder class have approved the settlement and the Court has approved the settlement and dismissed the complaint with prejudice on June 28, 2004.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ACCLE
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 01-CV-03585
JUDGE: Hon. Ronald S. Lew
DATE FILED: 04/19/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/22/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/17/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA)
    10940 Wilshire Blvd - 24th Floor, Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA), CA 90024
    310.208.2800 310.209.2348 · info@wyca.com
  2. 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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 01-CV-03585
JUDGE: Hon. Ronald S. Lew
DATE FILED: 10/30/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/22/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/17/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC (Little Rock)
    11001 Executive Center Drive, Suite 200, Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC (Little Rock), AR 72211
    501.312.8500 888.551.9944 · info@cauleybowman.com
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Los Angeles)
    355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90071
    213.617.9007 213.617.9185 · info@lerachlaw.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
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date