Lockheed Martin Corporation - 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

Lockheed Martin Corporation Summary: By the Mandate of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered on March 22, 2005, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

According to the latest docket posted, on May 27, 1999, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Lourdes G. Baird granting the motion to consolidate the related securities class actions against Lockheed Martin Corporation. The court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On August 12, 1999, the Court entered minutes appointing additional lead counsel. On December 1, 1999, the plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, and on March 13, 2000, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On October 4, 2000, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer granting the motion to dismiss. On December 15, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Second Amended Complaint, and on January 31, 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint. On July 24, 2002, the Court entered the Order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 13, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Third Amended Complaint. On March 26, 2003, the Court entered a Memorandum of Decision and Order by U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer dismissing the suit because the Court believed that no further amendments could cure the defects fatal to the first three complaints. The third consolidated amended class action complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The lead plaintiffs soon after filed a Notice of Appeal.

The original complaint charges Lockheed and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that in early August 1998, Lockheed's insiders began a concerted publicity campaign to overcome investors'/analysts' skepticism about Lockheed's 1st half 98 performance and to boost its stock price. On Oct. 20, 1998, when Lockheed reported its 3Q98 results, it represented that the reported EPS of $1.67 were "consistent with expectations" and that "we are on track" for 10% EPS growth in 98 with $1 billion in cash flow. Lockheed assured analysts that it had achieved very strong 3rdQ 98 operating margins due to strong business operations and that it was "on target" to achieve 10% EPS growth for 98, with 4thQ 98 EPS of about $2.06-$2.10, resulting in 4thQ 98 cash flow of $750 million. However, Lockheed concealed that $78 million of the $318 million in net income Lockheed reported for the 3rdQ 98 was generated by a secret accounting adjustment by which Lockheed reduced reserves it had maintained for years in connection with its Atlas rocket launch program by $120 million. In other words, $.41 of Lockheed's reported $1.67 EPS for the 3rdQ, 25% of its EPS, and most of its strong profit margins came not from its current operations, but rather from a secret accounting adjustment. Had this adjustment not been made, Lockheed's reported 3rdQ 98 EPS, net income and operating margins would have been far below the levels Lockheed had been forecasting. Based on Lockheed's strong 3rdQ results as reported and its forecasts of continued strong 4thQ 98 EPS and cash flow and further growth in 99, Lockheed's stock recovered from the low of $93- 3/8 it had fallen to shortly after the announcement of the COMSAT acquisition in September 1998, to $113-1/8 by Nov. 2, 1998, its highest price in months. However, the complaint further alleges, on or around Dec. 23, 1998, Lockheed shocked investors by revealing that, due to shortfalls in the delivery of C-130-J aircraft and Proton satellite launches and a much larger than earlier disclosed CalComp write-off, Lockheed's 4thQ 98 and 98 results would be far below the levels previously forecast, resulting in a major EPS and cash flow shortfall, and that Lockheed's 99 results would be much lower than earlier forecast as well. Lockheed's stock collapsed immediately from $95-3/4 to $82, its lowest price during 98 on volume of 3.5 million shares, the largest one-day absolute or percentage price decline and the second largest one-day stock volume for Lockheed in its history. In late December 1998, after Lockheed's stock had fallen to its lowest levels in two years, it was publicly reported that General Electric of Britain was interested in acquiring Lockheed and had had discussions with Lockheed about this earlier in 98. However, before the startling revelations of Dec. 23, 1998, Individual Defendants sold 268,659 shares of their Lockheed stock at artificially inflated prices as high as $109.97, for over $28 million in proceeds.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3721
Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Aerospace & Defense

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Lockheed Martin Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	LMT
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.lmco.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Mohammad Yousefi, et al. v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-00372
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Lourdes G. Baird
DATE FILED: 01/14/1999	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/13/1998	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/23/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net Cuneo Law Group 317 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 300, Washington , DC, 20002 (voice) 202.789.3960, (fax) 202.789.1810, contact@cuneolaw.com Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach La, FL, 32963 (voice) 561.231.4202, (fax) , Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 6

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/14/1999
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 99-CV-372
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/03/1999

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Lockheed Martin Corporation Securities Litigation

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-00372
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Mariana R. Pfaelzer
DATE FILED: 09/13/2002	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/13/1998	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/23/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Third Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego, CA) 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA, 92130 (voice) 858.793.0070, (fax) 858.793.0323, blbg@blbglaw.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 206.749.5544, (fax) 206.749.9978, info@lerachlaw.com Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 5

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Memorandum Of Decision And Order Re: 1. Motion for to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Third Amended Complaint; 2. Request for Judicial Notice; 3. Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Consolidated Third Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/24/2003
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/22/2005

OTHER DOCUMENTS
U.S. Court of Appeals Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Corbin, et al. v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 07/15/2005

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

�