Milberg Weiss Files Class Action Suit Against AT&T Corporation and C. Michael Armstrong.

Business Editors/Financial Analysts

SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 29, 2000

On October 27, 2000, Milberg Weiss announced that a class action lawsuit had been filed on October 27, 2000, on behalf of purchasers of the stock of AT&T Corporation ("AT&T" or the "Company") (NYSE:T) between October 25, 1999 and May 1, 2000 (the "Class Period"). That notice was published on October 27, 2000 on Business Wire. The lawsuit announced in the October 27, 2000 notice was filed by plaintiff, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98, against defendants AT&T and C. Michael Armstrong in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case number of the action is Civil Action No. 3:00cv05364 (GEB). The action is pending before the Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr., at the United States District Court, Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608.

In addition, on November 27, 2000, plaintiff, the New Hampshire Retirement System ("New Hampshire"), filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the stock of AT&T between October 25, 1999 and May 1, 2000 against defendants AT&T and C. Michael Armstrong in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case number for the New Hampshire action is Civil Action No. 3:00cv05785 (GEB). The action is pending before the Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr., at the United States District Court, Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608. A copy of the complaint filed by New Hampshire can be viewed on Milberg Weiss's web site at: http://www.milberg.com/att/.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 26, 2000. If you wish any further information concerning the Action, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Milberg Weiss at 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at You can join this class action online at http://www.milberg.com/att/.

Both of the above-described actions seek damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The defendants are AT&T and C. Michael Armstrong, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AT&T. Plaintiffs allege that defendants knowingly or recklessly disseminated materially false and misleading statements and omissions that misrepresented AT&T's business, operations, new acquisitions and earnings growth and its ability to achieve profitable growth. Plaintiffs further allege that the misrepresentations and omissions by defendants influenced the views of securities analysts and fostered an unrealistically positive assessment of AT&T and its business, prospects and operations. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of such misinformation, AT&T's stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants' materially false and misleading statements, included, among others: statements about AT&T's Concert joint venture, AT&T's Business Services corporate long-distance segment, AT&T's improving competitive position, and AT&T's accelerating revenue and earnings growth made between 10/25/99 and 5/2/00 which were false due to undisclosed problems. These problems were exacerbated by AT&T's loss during 99 of two large U.S. government long-distance contracts (the FTS 2000 contracts) and a huge ($650 million per year) BP Amoco PLC contract. As a result of these negative factors, AT&T's competitive position was impaired and AT&T and Armstrong knew by 10/25/99 that AT&T's Business Services unit's revenues were being materially adversely affected.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of AT&T stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). Plaintiffs are represented by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, who has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA") sets forth the following requirements, among others, for any person seeking to serve as a representative:

Each plaintiff seeking to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class shall provide a sworn certification, which shall be personally signed by such plaintiff and filed with the complaint, that:

(1) states that the plaintiff has reviewed the complaint and authorized its filing;

(2) states that the plaintiff did not purchase the security that is the subject of the complaint at the direction of the plaintiff's counsel or in order to participate in any private action arising under this chapter;

(3) states that the plaintiff is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class, including providing testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary;

(4) sets forth all the transactions of the plaintiff in the security that is the subject of the complaint during the class period specified in the complaint;

(5) identifies any other action under this chapter, filed during the 3-year period preceding the date on which the certification is signed by the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff has sought to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class; and

(6) states that the plaintiff will not accept any payment for serving as a representative party on behalf of a class beyond the plaintiff's pro rata share of any recovery, except as ordered or approved by the court in accordance with paragraph (4). 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv).

In addition, the PSLRA provides that the Court shall appoint as Lead Plaintiff the member or members of the class that the Court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. In determining the "most adequate plaintiff," the PSLRA provides that the Court shall adopt a rebuttable resumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the person or group of persons that has either filed a complaint or made a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(iii). At the Lead Plaintiff selection stage, this latter requirement involves a preliminary showing that the proposed Lead Plaintiff's claims are typical of claims of the class members, and that the Lead Plaintiff will be an adequate representative of the class. Any member of the alleged class may seek to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff, even if that person has not filed a complaint.