 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
ATI Technologies Inc. Conclusion: On August 8, 2007 the judge entered an order granting the defendants' December 4, 2006 motion to dismiss the case. As of yet, plaintiffs have not filed an appeal to the decision.
On June 29, 2006, the Court entered the Order consolidating all the actions, designated the Laborers Pension Group as lead plaintiff and approved Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, to serve as lead counsel. On September 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.
The original complaint charges ATI and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ATI is the world's second largest computer graphics chip maker.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, ATI's stock traded at inflated levels, allowing the Company's top officers and directors to sell or otherwise dispose of more than $54 million worth of their own shares at artificially inflated prices.
The complaint alleges that the true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company was selling desktop and notebook products with lower and lower profit margins; (b) ATI's gross margins were being weakened by high sales of its IGP products, which have profit margins well below the corporate average; (c) the Company was earning lower-than-anticipated yields on certain products due to operational issues in its own packaging and test areas of its manufacturing process; (d) the Company was experiencing production/design/yield issues with its R520 chip; (e) the Company was losing market share to arch-rivals Nvidia Corp. and Intel Corp.; and (f) despite defendants' previous statements to the contrary, a fire at one of the Company's primary suppliers in Taiwan was preventing the Company from receiving necessary supplies.
The complaint further alleges that on or around June 6, 2005, ATI warned that its revenue for the third quarter 2005 would fall well below its previously announced forecast. Thereafter, when the Company issued its actual third quarter 2005 financial results on June 23, 2005, reporting a quarterly loss of $445,000 in the third quarter 2005 compared to a profit of $48.6 million in the third quarter 2004 and further reducing fourth quarter 2005 revenue expectations by $20-$50 million, the Company's stock price fell another 8% to its lowest point since July 2003 on extremely high volume.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3575
Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | ATI Technologies Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | ATYT |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.ati.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Douglas R. Glass, et al. v. ATI Technologies Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 08/18/2005 | ||
| Douglas R. Glass, et al. v. ATI Technologies Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 10/17/2005 | ||
| Order | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 10/17/2005 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: ATI Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Consolidated Amended Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 9/8/2006 | ||
| Type: Memorandum | Date on the document: 8/8/2007 | ||
| Memorandum | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 8/8/2007 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 08/08/2007 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Stephen Chu, et al. v. ATI Technologies Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 08/23/2005 | ||
| Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Bolkar Acikkol, et al. v. ATI Technologies Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 09/08/2005 | ||
| Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Harrison J. Kornfield, et al. v. ATI Technologies Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 09/27/2005 | ||
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