The Boeing Company - 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

The Boeing Company Summary: According to a press release dated November 13, 2009, the complaint charges Boeing and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Boeing is involved in the design, development, manufacture, sale and support of military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human space flight, launch systems and services, and commercial jetliners, including the Dreamliner 787 (“787”), Boeing’s principal next generation commercial airplane, which has been eagerly awaited by the commercial airline market and the financial markets since it was first announced in 2004.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements to the market concerning the results of the testing process for the 787 and the Company’s ability to meet the schedule for the first flight and delivery of the 787. Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants made these false and misleading statements in an effort to: (a) forestall further cancellations of orders for the 787, particularly as the orders for its competition, the Airbus A380, were gaining ground; (b) conceal from the market the material fact that the 787 had a structural problem in its design that would prevent the first flight of the 787 by June 30, 2009, and delivery in the first quarter of 2010; and (c) enable Boeing to make a positive presentation concerning the test results for the 787 and the schedule for the first flight and delivery of the 787 at the Paris Airshow, scheduled for June 15-18, 2009, at which Boeing hoped to receive additional orders for the 787 and beat out the showing made by the Airbus for its A380. On June 23, 2009, Boeing announced that the first flight of the 787 would be postponed due to a “need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the aircraft” and that the first flight would be rescheduled. On this news, Boeing’s stock price fell 6.5% to close at $43.87 per share on June 23, 2009, and dropped a further 6% the next day to close at $41.32 per share.

On January 15, 2010, the Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon granted the motion to appoint the City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff’s selection of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead counsel. On February 22, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. On March 25, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint, which Judge Conlon granted on May 26, 2010. The case has been dismissed without prejudice.

On June 22, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On July 2, 2010, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

On August 10, 2010, the Court entered the Minute Entry before Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon. According to the court document, the Defendants motion to dismiss the second amended complaint 67 is denied. As explained in the courts order of June 22, 2010 62 , the added details in the second amended complaint satisfy the stringent pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Defendant shall answer the second amended complaint by August 30, 2010.

On September 24, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentations by plaintiffs' counsel, which was later denied on October 14, 2010, as lacking merit. On October 18, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class. On December 10, 2010, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on the order on the motion to dismiss. On January 6, 2011, the Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon denied the motion for class certification without prejudice.

According to the Memorandum Opinion and Judgment signed by the judge on March 7, 2011, the Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the August 10, 2010 and October 14, 2010 orders denying their motions to dismiss is granted. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

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

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	The Boeing Company
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	BA
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.boeing.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. The Boeing Company, et al.

COURT: N.D. Illinois	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-07143
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon
DATE FILED: 11/13/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/04/2009	CLASS PERIOD END: 06/22/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
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/ Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross (Philadelphia) John Wanamaker Building; 100 Penn Square East, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA, 19107 (voice) 215.561.3600, (fax) 215.561.3600, susang@bernardmgross.com Miller Law LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910, Chicago, IL, 60603 (voice) 312.676.2665, (fax) , info@MillerLawLLC.com VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C. 79 Alfred Street, Detroit, MI, 48201 (voice) 313.578.1200, (fax) 313.578.1200, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/13/2009
Order Granting The City Of Livonia Employees' Retirement System's Motion For Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of Lead Plaintiff's Selection Of Lead And Liaison Counsel
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 01/15/2010

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. The Boeing Company, et al.

COURT: N.D. Illinois	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-07143
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon
DATE FILED: 06/22/2010	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/03/2009	CLASS PERIOD END: 06/22/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Manhattan) 52 Duane Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10007 (voice) 212.693.1058, (fax) 212.693.1058, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, info@csgrr.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/22/2010
Judgment In A Civil Case
Type: Other		Date on the document: 05/26/2010
Memorandum Opinion And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 05/26/2010
Second Amended Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/22/2010
Minute Entry
Type: Other		Date on the document: 08/10/2010
Minutes
Type: Other		Date on the document: 01/06/2011
Judgment in a Civil Case
Type: Other		Date on the document: 03/07/2011
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/07/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/07/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

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

�