Company and Case Information

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


Anadigics, Inc.
Summary: On November 24, 2008, an Order was entered consolidating Kuznetz v. Anadigics, Inc., into Attias v. Anadigics, Inc.

According to press releases dated November 11 and 12, 2008, the complaint charges the defendants and certain of its current and former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Between July 25, 2007 and February 12, 2008 (the "Class Period"),The complaint charges that the representations contained in the defendants’ press releases, SEC filings, conference calls and presentations during the Class Period were materially false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was experiencing manufacturing inefficiencies associated with increased production levels and would not be able to meet its stated guidance; (ii) the Company was at risk of losing customers due to its inability to meet demand; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.

According to the complaint, on October 23, 2007, the Company held a conference call to discuss its third quarter earnings announcement and the Company’s operations. In response to the disappointing earnings announcement, the price of Anadigics common stock declined from $19.34 per share to $15.60 per share on heavy trading volume. However, defendants continued to conceal that the Company’s manufacturing inefficiencies were continuing to erode the Company’s profitability.

Then, on February 12, 2008, Anadigics announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and year-end 2007. Following this announcement, the price of Anadigics common stock dropped from $10.36 per share to $8.86 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Anadigics, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: ANAD
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.anadigics.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Charlie Attias, et al. v. Anadigics, Inc., et al.
 COURT: D. New Jersey  DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-05572
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Mary L. Cooper
 DATE FILED: 11/11/2008  SOURCE: 
 CLASS PERIOD START: 07/25/2007  CLASS PERIOD END: 02/12/2008
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf
      Park 80 Plaza West-One, Saddle Brook, NJ, 7663
       (voice) 201845.9600, (fax) , info@njlawfirm.com
  • Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747
       (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/
  • Dyer & Berens LLP
      682 Grant Street, Denver, CO, 80203-3507
       (voice) 303.861.1764, (fax) 303.861.1764, contact@dyerberens.com
  • Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta)
      200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA, 30338
       (voice) 770.392.0090, (fax) 770.392.0090,
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  4

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 11/11/2008
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 11/11/2008
    Order To Consolidate
    Type: Order of Consolidation Date on the document: 11/24/2008

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: Paul J. Kuznetz, et al. v. Anadigics, Inc., et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 11/21/2008

    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