 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Apple Computer, Inc. Summary: According to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal heard the matter on February 17, 2005 and affirmed the District Court’s ruling in an unpublished decision dated April 4, 2005. Plaintiffs will not seek further review and the matter is concluded.
As summarized by the same SEC filing, beginning on September 27, 2001, three shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer. These lawsuits are substantially identical, and purport to bring suit on behalf of persons who purchased the Company’s publicly traded common stock between July 19, 2000, and September 28, 2000. The complaints allege violations of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2002, which was heard by the Court on September 13, 2002. On December 11, 2002, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, with leave to Plaintiffs to amend their complaint within thirty days. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 31, 2003, and on March 17, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court heard the Company’s motion on July 11, 2003 and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice on August 12, 2003. Plaintiffs appealed the ruling.
The original complaint was filed charging Apple and its CEO with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that on 7/18-19/00, Apple introduced its new Power Mac G4 Dual Processor, G4 Cube and iMac personal computers, representing that they were exceptionally powerful, fast and attractive, coming with exceptionally attractive designs and containing new and revolutionary features. At this time, Apple represented that the development of these new products was completed, they were ready for mass production and would be available in quantity very shortly. Apple claimed this would result in Apple achieving strong revenue and earnings per share ("EPS") growth in its 4thQ F00 (to end 9/30/00) and F01. As a result, Apple's stock climbed to a Class Period high of $64-1/8 in early 9/00, when four top Apple officers sold 370,000 shares of their Apple stock for $22 million. Suddenly, just 20-25 trading days later, on 9/28/00, Apple shocked investors by revealing a huge 4thQ F00 revenue and EPS shortfall due to very poor sales to its education (K-12) market and poor consumer acceptance of its new personal computer products (some of which had been late to market, had defects and lacked features which were essential for market success), resulting in the accumulation of excessive inventories of finished goods in Apple's distribution channel and Apple having to cancel component part orders and, thereby, incur financial penalties. As rumors of Apple's troubles circulated prior to and then following Apple's shocking disclosure, Apple's stock collapsed from $61-3/64 on 9/20/00 to $25-3/8 on 9/29/00, continuing to fall to as low as $17 and then to $13-5/8, as investors absorbed the full impact of these shocking revelations, a stock decline that wiped out over $10 billion of Apple's market capitalization in just a few days.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3571
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Hardware
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Apple Computer, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | AAPL |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.apple.com/ |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Hawaii Structural Iron Workers Pension Fund Trust, et al. v. Apple Computer Inc., at al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 09/27/2001 | ||
| Declaration Of Randi D. Bandman In Support Of Motion For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiff And Selection Of Counsel | |||
| Type: Declaration | Date on the document: 12/17/2001 | ||
| Notice Of Motion And Motion For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiff And Selection Of Counsel; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 12/17/2001 | ||
| Notice Of Motion And Motion To Consolidate Related Actions And Preserve Documents; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 12/17/2001 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In re Apple Computer, Inc., Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Complaint For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Young | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 10/29/2001 | ||
| Complaint For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Hsu | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 11/13/2001 | ||
| Judgment [from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit] | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Apple Computer, Inc., Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 04/27/2005 | ||
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