CHICAGO, Feb. 8, 2002 (PRIMEZONE) -- Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. announces that class action lawsuits are pending in various federal courts on behalf of purchasers of the following securities during the periods set forth below:
Company Class Period Williams Companies, Inc. 7/24/00-1/29/02 (NYSE:WMB) Williams Communications Group, Inc. (NYSE:WCG) PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. 7/19/01-1/29/02 (NYSE:PNC) Global Crossing Ltd. 2/14/01-1/28/02 (OTCBB:GBLXQ) (formerly NYSE:GX) Tyco International Ltd. 2/01/00-2/01/02 (NYSE:TYC)
Much Shelist is currently investigating potential claims against these companies. If you purchased securities in any of these companies during the periods listed and wish to discuss your rights and interests in any of these matters, or if you have information relevant to the alleged misconduct described below, you may contact Carol V. Gilden, Jean K. Janes or Michael E. Moskovitz at Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., by calling a toll-free number 1-800-470-6824, or by sending an e-mail to cgilden@muchlaw.com, jjanes@muchlaw.com or mmoskovitz@muchlaw.com. Your e-mail should refer to the company or companies that affect you. A description of the investigations follows:
Williams Companies, Inc. (NYSE:WMB) and Williams Communications Group, Inc. (NYSE:WCG)
Much Shelist is investigating whether Williams Companies, Williams Communications and certain officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information regarding:
-- the spin-off of Williams Companies from Williams Communications,
-- the accounting and financial impact of the contingent liabilities
retained by Williams Companies, and
-- the nature of the assets and liabilities of Williams
Communications.
Specifically, Much Shelist is investigating the series of statements Williams Companies and Williams Communications issued concerning their businesses, financial results and operations. Much Shelist believes that the statements failed to disclose:
-- that the spin-off of Williams Communications from Williams
Companies was not in the best interests of both Williams
Companies' and Williams Communications' shareholders but the
primary motivation for the Williams Communications spin-off was
to allow Williams Companies to shore up its balance sheet so that
it could then issue more stock and/or debt to acquire companies
and protect its debt rating;
-- that Williams Communications was operating well below
company-sponsored expectations, such that revenue projections
were overstated, and costs and expenses were understated, and
that, in an effort to control costs, defendants would soon have
to take actions that would have a further adverse impact on
Williams Companies' profitability;
-- that approximately $2 billion of Williams Communications debt
that was guaranteed for payment by Williams Companies around the
time of the spin-off was improperly footnoted by Williams
Companies as a mere contingent obligation of Williams Companies,
which was materially false and misleading because the declining
financial condition of Williams Communications made it
increasingly certain that Williams Companies would be forced to
pay on such guaranties, for which it did not adequately reserve;
-- that Williams Communications' assets were permanently impaired
and had to be written-off and that Williams Communications
avoided taking such write-offs on its own books through a series
of financial machinations;
-- that Williams Companies was carrying on its financial statements
receivables from Williams Communications that were impaired,
uncollectible and should have been written-off in whole or in
substantial part. Rather than writing off these impaired assets,
which amounted to tens of millions of dollars, Williams Companies
agreed to extend up to $100 million of Williams Communications'
receivables with an outstanding balance due on March 31, 2001 to
March 15, 2002; and
-- that the sale and leaseback of Williams Communications' office
properties in or about September 2001 was a non-arm's length
transaction at an inflated value for the properties whose motive
and intent was to funnel monies to Williams Communications and
avoid forcing Williams Companies to perform its guaranties and
thereby adversely affect its results and debt ratings.
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE:PNC)
Much Shelist is investigating whether PNC, certain of its officers and directors and Ernst & Young, an accounting firm that provided PNC with auditing and consulting work throughout the Class Period, violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements to the market concerning PNC's earnings prospects, results and reductions in loans, which misled investors and concealed PNC's true financial condition.
Specifically, Much Shelist is investigating whether during the Class Period PNC and its officers and directors and Ernst & Young failed to recognize the impairment of certain loans or charges related to PNC, and instead shifted these problem loans off PNC's books and into three separate investment entities created by the American International Group ("AIG") for the sole purpose of receiving such loans during each of the quarters during the Class Period. As a result, PNC's earnings, as well as PNC's ability to reduce its liabilities related to non-performing assets, were overstated. In fact, the failure to conform with Generally Accepted Accounting Standards ("GAAP") produced inflated earnings and misled investors as to PNC's true financial condition.
Much Shelist further believes that while acting as an auditor and consultant for PNC, Ernst & Young was also acting as a consultant for AIG. In fact, as PNC's auditor, Ernst & Young approved PNC's transactions with AIG and issued a written statement approving the accounting for them. On January 29, 2002, PNC announced that the Federal Reserve Board ("FRB") had demanded that PNC consolidate its financial results with the investment entities created by AIG, effectively requiring PNC to reflect the true nature of these loans. In addition, PNC announced that the FRB and the SEC were making inquiries about PNC's transactions. As a result of the FRB's actions, PNC was compelled to reduce its 2001 net income by approximately $155 million. PNC further announced that it will revise fourth quarter 2001 results and restate earnings for the second and third quarters of 2001. Following the news of these disclosures, PNC's stock fell dramatically to close on January 29, 2002 at $56.08, down $5.79 or nearly 10%, from its close on January 28, 2002 at $61.87.
Global Crossing Ltd. (OTCBB:GBLXQ) (formerly NYSE:GX)
Much Shelist is investigating whether certain of Global Crossing's officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements, press releases, and SEC filings concerning Global Crossing's financial condition, as well as Global Crossing's ability to generate sufficient cash revenue from new revenue sources, considering the failing market for broadband access. Global Crossing filed for protection under Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on January 28, 2002 and, therefore, cannot be considered as a defendant.
Before the disclosure of Global Crossing's true financial condition, certain of its officers and directors and other Global Crossing insiders sold their Global Crossing common stock for proceeds of more than $149 million and Global Crossing raised $1 billion in an offering of senior notes. The full extent of Global Crossing's cash flow crisis, and its failure to compete in the market for customized communications services, began to emerge on Oct. 4, 2001. On that date, Global Crossing issued a string of stunning announcements:
-- Cash revenues in the third quarter would be approximately $1.2
billion, $400 million less than the $1.6 billion expected by a
consensus of analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial/First Call.
The cash revenue shortfall was purportedly the result of a "sharp
falloff" in wholesale IRU sales to carrier customers.
-- Global Crossing also announced that it expected recurring
adjusted EBITDA to be "significantly less than $100 million"
compared to forecasts of $400 million.
Following these announcements, Global Crossing's share priced plunged by 49% to $1.07 per share.
Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE:TYC)
Much Shelist is investigating whether Tyco and certain officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period. During the Class Period, Tyco shares traded as high as $63.21 per share. On February 4, 2002, Tyco shares reached an intra-day low of $28.50 per share.
Much Shelist believes that Tyco's representations during the Class Period were rendered false and misleading by its failure to disclose:
-- that Tyco would achieve its earnings targets only through
undisclosed acquisitions;
-- that certain officers and directors sold in excess of $100
million of their individual stock holdings to Tyco; and
-- that Tyco's management procedures were to make large payments to
insiders, including a $20 million payment to one director and his
charity for furthering Tyco's interests.
Much Shelist is also investigating whether external rule changes required Tyco to cease its allegedly aggressive revenue recognition practices and recognize the revenues from its security contracts only as the monies thereunder were received. Throughout the Class Period, Tyco and certain of its officers and directors were allegedly aware that the adverse financial effect of the rule change by the Securities and Exchange Commission would be approximately $1 billion. Tyco, however, allegedly failed to disclose this adverse financial effect until partial disclosure was made in October 2001.
If you purchased securities in any of these companies during the periods listed and if you meet certain other legal requirements, you may move the respective court where the lawsuit(s) has been filed to serve as a lead plaintiff. You must file your motion no later than:
-- Williams Companies, Inc. and Williams Communications Group, Inc.
- April 1, 2002;
-- PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. - April 2, 2002;
-- Global Crossing Ltd. - April 5, 2002; and
-- Tyco International Ltd. - April 7, 2002.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. The requirements for serving as a lead plaintiff are set forth in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. section 78u-4).
Much Shelist's history is one of experience, leadership and results. For more than 25 years, Much Shelist has represented plaintiffs in class action litigation in federal and state courts across the United States. The firm has successfully prosecuted cases involving securities fraud, antitrust violations, consumer fraud, unlawful business practices and insurance company fraud. Under Much Shelist's leadership, class members have obtained judgments and settlements in excess of $4 billion.
More information on these and other class actions can be found on the Class Action Newsline at www.primezone.com/ca