Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/21/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: November 19, 2018

According to the Complaint, Altice USA is a broadband communications and video services providers in the United States delivering broadband, pay television, telephony services, Wi-Fi hotspot access, proprietary content and advertising services to millions of residential and business customers. Altice USA operates through two major brands in the U.S.: Suddenlink and Optimum.

On April 11, 2017, Altice filed a draft registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC. The registration statement was subsequently amended five times, with the final amended registration statement on Form S-1/A filed on June 21, 2017 (collectively, the “Registration Statement”). The Registration Statement was declared effective by the SEC on June 21, 2017. Altice filed its final prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC on June 23, 2017 (“Prospectus”). The Registration Statement and the Prospectus are collectively referred to herein as the “Offering Documents.”

The IPO consisted of a public sale of 71,724,136 shares of common stock at a price to the public of $30.00 per share. Altice USA received net proceeds of approximately $362 million before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions.

The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents issued pursuant to the IPO failed to disclose and/or misstated material information, including that: (1) “The Altice Way” proprietary growth model previously developed in Europe and described in the Offering Documents as a means to achieve superior margin performance was falsely touting Altice’s capacity to face already existing highly competitive environments and ever-changing consumer behaviors, (2) Altice was suffering from aggressively growing competition both in Europe and the United States, directly causing negative and decelerating revenue and EBITDA growth and impacting Altice’s market share, (3) specifically, Altice was suffering from mismanaged rate events, regulatory compliance and poorly managed network and customer care both in its France and Portugal segments, thereby impacting its customer base and churn rate, (4) Altice USA could not simply replicate the “The Altice Way” in the U.S. and (5) as a result, Altice USA’s Offering Documents were materially misleading at all relevant times.

On March 22, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on May 10. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on November 27. On September 23, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was given leave to amend the Complaint. On October 7, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint. On November 18, the parties notified the Court that they had reached a Settlement in principle.


Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: ATUS
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: E.D. New York
DOCKET #: 18-CV-06601
JUDGE: Hon. Frederic Block
DATE FILED: 11/19/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/19/2018
  1. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: E.D. New York
DOCKET #: 18-CV-06601
JUDGE: Hon. Frederic Block
DATE FILED: 10/07/2020
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/03/2017
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
  2. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
  3. The Schall Law Firm
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available