Cree Research, Inc. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Cree Research, Inc. Conclusion: According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the quarterly period ended December 28, 1997, the consolidated securities class action lawsuits previously pending against the Company and certain of its directors and officers were dismissed with prejudice on November 28, 1997. The dismissal was pursuant to a stipulation of the named parties entered after the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim. No payments were made to the plaintiffs to obtain the dismissal. The suits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in October and December 1996 and subsequently consolidated, alleged that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions during the period from February 1, 1996 to July 2, 1996 and sought damages on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock within that period. By stipulating to the dismissal with prejudice, the plaintiffs waived any right to re-file the action or to appeal the court's order of dismissal.

As previously reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 28, 1997, the court on October 17, 1997 issued a ruling granting defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint and ordering the case dismissed without prejudice. As of October 20, 1997, the Company has received no notice of appeal.

The complaint charges Cree and certain of its directors and officers (the "Individual Defendants") with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related state law. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on or around February 1, 1996, defendants stated that Cree would produce 1.5 million blue light-emitting diode chips ("LEDs") in the fiscal third quarter ending March 31, 1996, and 6 million in the fiscal fourth quarter ending June 30, 1996. Following this announcement, the company reported record results for its second and third quarters of fiscal year 1996 and continued to represent that it was successfully meeting its production goals for its blue LEDs. Against this backdrop of positive announcements, the price of Cree common stock rose sharply from $14.125 per share, at the beginning of the Class Period, to a Class Period high of $20.625 per share. After the end of the Class Period, the s tock price declined to $10 per share following the belated disclosure of the facts which had been misrepresented or omitted during all relevant times.

The complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants took advantage of the artificially inflated price at which Cree stock traded during the Class Period by selling substantial portions of their holdings of Cree common stock to the investing public -- receiving total proceeds of $3,747,025. The Complaint alleges that, at the same time, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that Cree was experiencing significant operational problems relating to design and quality defects and other difficulties which were operating to increase costs and reduce sales of its blue LEDs. Indeed, Cree's blue LEDS suffered from a significant design defect that caused them to burn out after only 500 to 1000 hours of use, rendering them unsuitable and uneconomical for many applications. In addition, Cree's blue LEDs suffered from severe and persistent quality problems and limitations which resulted in returns and/or exchanges of the product and depressed sales. These problems, among others, increased Cree's operating costs and hampered the company's ability to attain its publicly projected production and sales levels for its blue LEDs.

The complaint further alleges that on or around July 2, 1996, defendants revealed that the company would have a loss for the fourth fiscal quarter of 1996 ending June 30, 1996, because of higher production costs associated with production of its blue LEDs and that the company had been only able to produce three million blue LEDs. Negative market reaction was swift. The price of Cree common stock dropped from $15.75 per share to $13.50 per share, a decrease of 14 percent and subsequently declined further to $10.125 per share on July 12, 1996, a range where it continued to trade for a substantial period thereafter.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3674
Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Cree Research, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	CREE
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.cree.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Arif H. Rasheedi, et al. v. Cree Research, Inc., et al.

COURT: M.D. North Carolina	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-00890
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Richard C. Erwin
DATE FILED: 10/25/1996	SOURCE: Internet
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/01/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 07/02/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
McDaniel & Anderson, LLP 4942 Windy Hill Drive; P.O. Box 58186, Raleigh, NC, 27658 (voice) (919) 872-3000, (fax) , Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Law and State Law
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 10/25/1996

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Arif H. Rasheedi, et al. v. Cree Research, Inc., et al.

COURT: M.D. North Carolina	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-00890
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Richard C. Erwin
DATE FILED: 03/17/1997	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/01/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 07/02/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
McDaniel & Anderson, LLP 4942 Windy Hill Drive; P.O. Box 58186, Raleigh, NC, 27658 (voice) (919) 872-3000, (fax) , Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) , Wechsler Harwood LLP 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.935.7400, (fax) , info@whhf.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Judgment and Memorandum Opinion [case dismissed without prejudice]
Type: Other		Date on the document: 10/17/1997
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 12/22/1997

OTHER DOCUMENTS
US District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: FCC Products, Inc., et al. v. Cree Research, Inc., et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 12/22/1997

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�