Seems that there were alot of improprieties with the company's
operations, there are quite a few legal actions against Global
Crossings.
The alleged charges includes:
1) The complaint alleges five causes of action: (1) breach of
federal tariffs; (2) breach of state tariffs; (3) unjust enrichment
(in the alternative to the tariff claims); (4) fraud; and (5) civil
conspiracy.
2) Following the Companys April 27, 2004 announcement that the
Company expected to restate certain of its consolidated financial
statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, eight
separate class action lawsuits all purporting to be brought on
behalf of Company shareholders were commenced against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District
Courts in New Jersey, New York and California...................On
February 18, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint against the Company and two of its past and
present officers.
3) A claim was filed in the Companys bankruptcy proceedings by the
U.S. Department of Commerce (the Commerce Department) on October
30, 2002 asserting that an undersea cable owned by Pacific Crossing
Limited (PCL), a former subsidiary of the Company, violates the
terms of a Special Use permit issued by theNational Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration..................An identical claim that
had been filed in the bankruptcy proceedings of PCL was settled in
principle in September 2005 and was subsequently approved by the
court as part of the PCL plan of reorganization confirmed in an
order dated
November 10, 2005............................In August 2003, the
OFT extended its investigation in respect of allegations of price
fixing and information sharing on the level of fees that the subsea
entities would pay landowners for permission to land submarine
telecommunication cables on their land in the U.K................
In a decision dated October 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed
the approval of the settlement and lifted the injunction. The case
has been remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings.
4) In May 2001, a purported class action was commenced against
three of the Companys subsidiaries in theU.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the
Company had no right to install a fiber-optic cable in
rights-of-way granted by the plaintiffs to certain railroads.
5) A tax authority in South America has concluded a preliminary
audit of the Companys books and records for the years ended
December 31, 2001 and 2000 and has made certain initial findings
adverse to the Company including the following: failure to disclose
discounts on certain goods imported into the country, failure to
include the value of software installed on certain computer
equipment, and clerical errors in filed import documents.
Wonder if it's a wise decision to acquire the company in the first
place.
Goes to show, when your plumbing is choked, you don't look for a
doctorate in economics to fix the choke.
