Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Gilat Satellite Networks

September 18, 2007

IN RE: GILAT SATELLITE NETWORKS, LTD.,


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sifton, Senior Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On January 17, 2003, eleven class actions alleging violations of federal securities laws by Defendants Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. ("Gilat"), Yoel Gat, and Yoav Leibovitch (collectively "Defendants") were consolidated in this Court and Leumi PIA Sector Fund, Leumi PIA World Fund, and Leumi PIA Export Fund were appointed Lead Plaintiffs.*fn1 On May 13, 2003, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Original Consolidated Complaint"), alleging against all Defendants violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, 17 C.F.R. § 240j.10b-5. The complaint also alleges against Gat and Leibovitch a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 19, the undersigned certified the settlement class and granted the parties' motions for preliminary approval of a proposed Settlement Agreement, preliminary approval of a Plan of Allocation, and approval of the proposed manner and form of Notice to the settlement class and of the proposed Proof of Claim form. A Fairness Hearing was held on July 19, 2007 to consider final approval of the settlement. Now before the Court are the parties' joint motion for final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel's motion for attorney's fees and expenses, and Imanuel Liban's*fn2 motion for attorney's fees and expenses, as well as Mr. Liban's August 20, 2007 supplemental filing entitled "Clarification On Behalf of Mr. Imanuel Liban." For the reasons set forth below, the parties' motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement is granted, Lead Counsel's motion for attorney's fees and expenses is granted in part and denied in part, and Imanuel Liban' motion for attorney's fees and expenses is denied.

BACKGROUND

Familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case, as set forth in prior decisions of this Court, is presumed. Only those facts relevant to the present motion are discussed herein.

Gilat's Business

Gilat is a provider of products and services for satellite-based communications products and services, including Very Small Aperture Terminal ("VSAT") satellite dishes. During the relevant time periods, February 10, 2000 through May 31, 2002, Yoel Gat was Gilat's Chief Executive Officer and Yoav Leibovitch was Gilat's Chief Financial Officer.

In January 2000, Gilat formed a joint venture, StarBand, with Microsoft and EchoStar Communications, to provide internet access via satellite dishes. Customers would purchase a VSAT manufactured by Gilat and then pay a monthly fee to receive internet access. The StarBand service was made available to the public in November 2000.

During the relevant time periods, Gilat common stock was traded on the NASDAQ National Market System ("NASDAQ"). From 1997 to 2000, Gilat reported substantial growth in revenues and its stock rose significantly. On February 28, 2000, Gilat stock closed on the NASDAQ at $160.50 a share.

Claims Against Defendants

According to the Amended Consolidated Complaint, Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and defendants Gat and Leibovitch violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.*fn3 More specifically, Lead Plaintiffs allege that Defendants artificially inflated Gilat's financial results through deceptive financial statements which overstated Gilat's revenues. Although Defendants purported to follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"),*fn4 they allegedly inflated reported revenues in press statements and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filings through premature revenue recognition, recording revenue from sales in excess of actual purchases, recognizing revenue from sales prior to delivering the product to customers, recognizing revenue from sales to uncreditworthy customers, recording goods placed on consignment as sold, and engaged in related-party transactions. Lead Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants misrepresented the performance of StarBand and the market for its services, claiming significant success while there were allegedly serious problems with the service and in signing up new subscribers. The Amended Consolidated Complaint also alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that Echostar Communications had not marketed Starband as promised and that Starband's lenders had withdrawn a $37 million line of credit and that the Defendants falsely stated that Gilat's total financial exposure to Starband would not exceed $75 million. According to Lead Plaintiffs, as a result of these materially false and misleading statements, made between February 10, 2000 and May 31, 2002 (the "Class Period"),*fn5 they and other class members suffered damages because they purchased or otherwise acquired Gilat securities at prices which were artificially inflated. The maximum estimated damages alleged by Lead Plaintiffs amount to $187 million.

Settlement Negotiations and Preliminary Approval

In June 2006, the parties engaged in two days of mediation before retired California Superior Court Judge Daniel Weinstein.*fn6

As a result of that mediation, the parties reached an agreement on the terms of the settlement.

On December 1, 2006, the parties moved for (1) certification of a settlement class; (2) preliminary approval of a proposed Settlement Agreement; (3) approval of proposed Plan of Allocation; (4) approval of the proposed manner and form of Notice to the settlement class and of the proposed Proof of Claim form; and (5) scheduling of a date for a Fairness Hearing to consider final approval of the settlement. On January 4, 2007, this Court certified the settlement class, but denied the motions for preliminarily approval of the Settlement Agreement and the Plan of Allocation without prejudice,*fn7 and, accordingly, denied the motions for approval of the proposed Notice and for scheduling of a date for a Fairness Hearing.*fn8

The parties then revised the settlement in light of this Court's ruling and moved again for the same relief and on April 19, 2007, I (1) certified an amended settlement class; (2) granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement; (3) granted preliminary approval of the proposed Plan of Allocation; (4) approved the proposed manner and form of Notice and the proposed Proof of Claim form; and (5) scheduled a Fairness Hearing for July 19, 2007. See In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd., 2007 WL 1191048 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). I also issued an Order specifying, among other things, the dates by which the parties had to provide notice and the dates by which Class Members had to file objections or requests for exclusion from the Class.*fn9 In addition, I set September 3, 2007 as the date by which Proof of Claim forms had to be returned by Class Members. See In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd., 2007 WL 1191137 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).

Mailing of Notice

The parties submitted an affidavit on July 5, 2007, confirming that Notice was mailed on May 9 to 374 shareholders of record and 2,748 brokerage firms, banks, institutions and others who may serve as nominee owners, as required; that a copy of the Notice was placed on the website of the Claims Administrator, Garden City Group ("GCG"), on May 9, as required; that copies of the Notice were placed on the websites of Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel on May 17 and May 18, 1 and 2 days later than was required, though the delay was due to inadvertent error;*fn10 that toll-free phone numbers for inquires with English and Hebrew speaking operators were placed into service by GCG by May 14, as required;*fn11 that local counsel in Israel placed into service a local phone number for inquires, as required;*fn12 and that Summary Notice was published in Wall Street Journal on May 23, Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post on May 22, and Globes on May 21, as required. Since the original date of the mailings, nominee owners have requested that GCG mail Notice directly to 17,417 potential Class Members and that GCG mail an additional 4,178 copies of the Notice to nominee owners for forwarding to potential Class Members. GCG has responded to these requests as they were made in a timely manner. In addition, the Postal Service has provided updated address information for each of the 374 shareholders of record and Notice has been re-mailed to them. As a result, on July 23, 2007, I ordered that the deadline for requests for exclusion and objections by Class Members who had not received actual Notice prior to July 15, 2007 be extended until September 3, 2007.

No requests for exclusion or objections to the Settlement Agreement have been received by GCG, the parties or this Court as of the date of this Opinion.*fn13

Settlement Agreement

I. Members of the Class & Identity of Lead Plaintiffs

According to the Amended Settlement Agreement, the Class consists of "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Gilat common stock between February 10, 2000 and May 31, 2002, inclusive."*fn14 Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, ¶ 1(c)) ("Amended Settlement").

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, members of the immediate family of each of Defendants, any person, firm, trust, corporation, officer, director, or other individual or entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest or which is related to or affiliated with any of the Defendants, and the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any such excluded party. "Related to or affiliated with" means all companies, subsidiaries, joint ventures, joint subsidiaries, or other entities controlled by any Defendant, or any entity that is or was under common corporate ownership or control with any Defendant.

Id.

Lead Plaintiffs in this case are three mutual funds, managed by Harel-PIA Group, Israel's longest established mutual fund management company, representing more the $3 billion in assets. Harel-PIA Group is owned by Harel Insurance Investments Ltd., a publically traded Israeli insurance company. The three funds who serve as Lead Plaintiffs manage between $7 million and $17.5 million in assets each.

None of these three funds owned Gilat stock at the beginning of the Class Period and they each purchased and sold shares during several of the time periods described in the Plan of Allocation below.*fn15 Exhibit A annexed to the Declaration of Michael Civer (filed with the December 2006 motion) reflects that Leumi PIA World Fund purchased 87,950 shares of Gilat stock during periods 1, 3 and 4 and sold stock during periods 1, 3 and 4; the fund sold all its stock before the end of the Class Period. Civer Declaration, ¶ 6, Exhibit A. Leumi PIA Export Fund purchased 11,000 shares of Gilat stock during period 1, sold 4,000 shares during period 1 and held the remainder until after the end of period 5. Id. Leumi PIA Sector Fund purchased 6,000 shares during period 1 and sold all of its shares during period 3. Id. Lead Plaintiffs will not receive any compensation or recovery under the settlement for acting as Lead Plaintiffs.*fn16

II. Released Parties

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the "Released Parties" are: any and all of Defendants and their respective present and former affiliates, predecessors, successors, and assigns, and each of their respective family members, heirs, executors, and administrators, and any corporate entity affiliated with any of the Defendants, including, but not limited to, Gilat, and its presents and former officers, directors, employees, partners, principals, trustees, attorneys, auditors, accountants, investment bankers, consultants, agents, insurers and co-insurers and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, predecessors, successors (including, but not limited to, successors in bankruptcy) and assigns.

Amended Settlement, ¶ 1(q).

III. Claims Administrator

Lead Plaintiffs' counsel have proposed GCG as their Claims Administrator.*fn17 GCG has been in the business of administering class action settlements for twenty years and has administered hundreds of class action settlements, including several well-known securities settlements. First Affidavit of Shandarese Garr, ¶ 2-3 ("Garr First Affidavit") (attached to December 2006 motion).*fn18 The firm has experience handling international aspects of class action settlements, and it has in the past provided such services as toll-free numbers and websites which accommodate non-English speakers. Id., ¶ 6. The firm strives to complete all work and provide final reports within six months of the claims-filing deadline and foresees no reason why it could not adhere to that timeline in this case. Id., ¶ 8.

Lead Plaintiffs' counsel selected GCG after reviewing the available options. All three firms have had favorable experiences with GCG in prior securities settlements and have found that "GCG provides professional and high quality work, at competitive rates." Declaration of Daniel Sommers, ¶ 8 ("Sommers Declaration") (attached to December 2006 motion).*fn19

IV. Settlement Fund

Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants have agreed to pay $20 million to the Class ("Gross Settlement Fund"),*fn20 in exchange for release of all claims "arising out of, based upon or related to the purchase of Gilat common stock during the Class Period and that facts, transactions, events, occurrences, acts, disclosures, statements, omissions or failures to act that were alleged in Action." Amended Settlement, ¶ 1(r)), 5(a), 5(b). After accounting for (1) taxes on the income from the Settlement Fund, (ii) the notice and administrative costs of settlement, (iii) attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by this Court, and (iv) additional administrative expenses, the "Net Settlement Fund" will be distributed according to the Plan of Allocation among Class members who do not opt-out of the settlement and who submit valid proofs of claim. Id., ¶ 7, 13-16.

Under the Settlement Agreement, Lead Plaintiffs' counsel may expend, without further approval from the Court, up to $300,000 from the Gross Settlement Fund to pay the reasonable costs and expenses associated with identifying Class members, publishing, printing and mailing notice and the administrative fees charged by the Claims Administrator in connection with providing notice and processing submitted claims. Id., ¶ 8. The Amended Settlement also provides that Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys fees of up to 30% of the Gross Settlement Amount and reimbursement of expenses, also payable from the Gross Settlement Amount; these fees and expenses are to be allocated among counsel in proportion to their respective contributions to the prosecution and resolution of this suit. Id., ¶ 9.

V. Amended Plan of Allocation

The Amended Plan of Allocation proposed by the Lead Plaintiffs is set out in the Amended Notice of Proposed Settlement and was prepared with the assistance of a damages consultant, Michael Marek, CFA. See Declaration of Michael Marek. The Plan of Allocation "reflects the Lead Plaintiffs' allegations that the price of Gilat's common stock was inflated artificially during the Class Period." Amended Notice, ¶ 38. According to Lead Plaintiffs, the artificial inflation began on or before February 10, 2000 and Gilat's stock remained inflated throughout the Class Period, until May 31, 2002. Id. However, at certain times during the Class Period, Gilat made disclosures which partially revealed the alleged fraud and caused the stock price to fall, thereby reducing the amount of artificial inflation caused by earlier allegedly false and misleading statements. Accordingly, the Plan of Allocation identifies five different time periods and allocates damages on the basis of the amount of artificial inflation remaining in the stock price during each of these periods. "Each Authorized Claimant shall be allocated a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based on his, her or its Recognized Claim as compared to the total Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants." Id., ¶ 41.

1) Time Period 1: February 10, 2000 - March 9, 2001 at 2:40 PM

According to the Amended Consolidated Complaint, after the close of the markets on February 9, 2000, Bloomberg reported on comments made by Gat at a conference regarding StarBand's business prospects which were "materially false and misleading." Amended Consolidated Complaint, ¶¶ 66-67; see also Marek Declaration, ¶ 5. Accordingly, the relevant Class Period begins on February 10, the first trading day after the allegedly false statements.

"The first alleged partial disclosure of fraud occurred on March 9, 2001, when Defendants revealed that a previously announced initial public offering of StarBand stock would not proceed." Amended Notice, ¶ 38. According to the parties' damages consultant, the disclosure was made at 2:40 P.M. EST. Marek Declaration, ¶ 7. For stock purchased before 2:40 P.M. on March 9, 2001 the damages consultant concluded that the price of Gilat stock was inflated by $16.62 per share. Therefore for common stock purchased prior to 2:40 p.m. EST on March 9, 2001 and held through the end of the Class Period, the Plan of Allocation provides for a maximum Recognized Loss of $16.62.*fn21 For stock sold earlier than the end of the Class Period, and thus before the full amount of alleged inflation had gone out of the stock, the Recognized Loss will be lower than the maximum.

Amended Notice, ¶ 38. Since some Class Members will be unable to prove the time at which they purchased their Gilat stock on that day, the stock price of $32.875 will be used as a proxy under the Plan, since $32.875 was the price per share of the last trade prior to the 2:40 PM disclosure. Trades at or above $32.875 will be deemed to have occurred prior to 2:40 PM and trades below that amount will be deemed to have occurred after 2:40 PM. Id., n.6.*fn22

2) Time Period 2: March 9, 2001 after 2:40 P.M. - March 11, 2001*fn23

Gilat's stock price fell on March 9 after the disclosure at 2:40 P.M. and, according to the damages consultant, $1.19 of the decline was attributable to the StarBand announcement of March 9, leaving $15.43 of artificial inflation in the stock. Amended Notice, ¶ 38.

Accordingly, for purchases after 2:40 p.m. EST on March 9, 2001 but prior to March 12, 2001, and held through the end of the Class Period, the Plan of Allocation provides for a maximum Recognized Loss of $15.43. For stock sold earlier than the end of the Class Period, and thus before the full amount of alleged inflation had gone out of the stock, the Recognized Loss will be lower than the maximum.

Id.

3) Time Period 3: March 12, 2001 - October 2, 2001

According to Lead Plaintiffs, the alleged fraud was further partially revealed on March 12, 2001, prior to the opening of the market,*fn24 "when Defendants announced downwardly-revised earnings guidelines for Gilat," leading to a further decline in Gilat's stock price, $13.10 of which was attributable to that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.