LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

AIRMONT PLAZA ASSOCIATES v SPECTRAN CORP Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 17,314, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE, Plaintiff: AIRMONT PLAZA ASSOCIATES, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00017314, Spectran, Lucent, Individual Defendants, Transaction, Price, Fiber, Merger, Shareholders, Complaint, Common, Shares, Market, Proper, Adequate, Damages, Stock, Premium, Reason, Relief, Awarding, Richard, Lucent Technologies, President, Stockholders , ContentID: 120240778

Case Documents
1 1999-07 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 101838
8 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 8 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFFS
LUCENT
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
TRANSACTION
PRICE
FIBER
MEMBERS
MERGER
SHAREHOLDERS
LAW
COURT
COMPLAINT
COMMON
SHARES
MARKET
PROPER
COUNSEL
ADEQUATE
DAMAGES
STOCK
PREMIUM
REASON
RELIEF
AWARDING
RICHARD
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
PRESIDENT
STOCKHOLDERS
                                                         COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE

                                                                              IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE

..""   



    AIRMONT PLAZA ASSOCIATES and C.A. No.  17314NC
    RICHARD SCHATZ,

                                                                                               

                        CLASS ACTION
                                                  -against- COMPLAINT

    SPECTRAN CORPORATION, JOHN E.
    CHAPMAN, CHARLES B. HARRISON, IRA
    S. NORDLICHT, LILY K. LAI, ROBERT A.
    SCHMITZ, RICHARD M. DONOFRIO, PAUL
                                                 .I.

                                               I_  1
    D. LAZAY and LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
    INC.,

                                                        :--
                                                                                                
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......-.~..........               `.. -, _              `.

                                         -
                                              Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, allege upon

to paragraph 1 which plaintiffs allege upon knowledge, as follows:

                                               1. Plaintiffs are and were, at all times relevant to

shareholders of defendant SpecTran Corporation ("SpecTran" or the "Company").

                                              2. SpecTran is a corporation duly existing and1

of the State of Delaware. SpecTran develops, manufactures, and markets glass optical

fibers and value-added fiber optic products. The Company manufactures standard fiber

and cable, as well as special performance fiber and cable for global communications

markets.                                    SpecTran's  optical fiber and cable products also serve
SNIPPETS:
  • COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE
  • No. 17314NC RICHARD SCHATZ,
  • -against- COMPLAINT
  • Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, allege upon information and belief, except as
  • shareholders of defendant SpecTran Corporation.
  • fibers and value-added fiber optic products.
  • Harrison is President, Chief
  • founding partner of the law firm which provides legal services,
  • Defendants Lily K. Lai, Robert A. Schmitz, Richard M. Donofrio
  • Defendant Lucent Technologies Inc. is a corporation duly
  • responsibility to plaintiffs and the other public stockholders of SpecTran and owes them
  • There are questions of law and fact which are common to the
  • class and which predominate over questions affecting any individual class members;
  • retained competent counsel experienced in litigation of this nature.
  • announced that they had entered into a definitive merger a,greement whereby Lucent will
  • acquire SpecTran in a transaction valued at $99 million.
  • common shares at a price of $9.00 per share and will assume:
  • Individual Defendants; and they are intrinsically unfair and inadequate from the standpoint
  • The proposed purchase price is inade:quatle.
  • premium can be as much as or greater than 50% of the current price.
  • transaction involves a discount from the current market price.
  • and will be prevented from obtaining fair and adequate
  • consideration for their shares of SpecTran common stock.
  • By reason of the foregoing, each member of the Class will suffer
  • irreparable injury and damages absent injunctive relief by this Court.
  • Awarding the Class compensatory damages against defendants,
  • Court may deem just and proper.
  •    |