Siemens AG - 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

Siemens AG Summary: The complaint charges Siemens with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Siemens made materially false and misleading statements concerning its ability to generate revenues and achieve earnings expectations once it had put an end to systemic and extensive fraud, bribery and other illegal and corrupt activities in order to obtain contracts or retain business. As the truth was revealed, Siemens shares plummeted, causing damages of billions of dollars to Siemens shareholders.

On February 17, 2010, an Order on the remaining motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel was granted. 1199 SEIU Greater New York Pension Fund was appointed lead plaintiff for the putative class, and the law firm of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP was appointed as the putative class's Lead Counsel.

On May 17, 2010, an Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws against was filed against the Defendants.

On March 31, 2011, the Court dismissed the claims against the defendants without leave to replead. Lead plaintiff’s claims under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against the defendants were dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim, as the amended complaint failed to allege facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter as required under the PSLRA. In the absence of an alleged violation of § 10(b) or Rule 10b-5, lead plaintiff’s claims against certain individual defendants under § 20(a) were dismissed also pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration from the order, and the motion was denied. The Clerk's Judgment was entered on May 11, 2011, and the case is now closed.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 8880
Sector: Conglomerates
Industry: Conglomerates

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Siemens AG
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	SI
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.siemens.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Christine Johnson , et al. v. Siemens AG, et al.

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-05310
JUDGE NAME: Hon. John Gleeson
DATE FILED: 12/04/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/08/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/30/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com Weiss & Lurie (New York, NY) The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126 (voice) 212.682.3025, (fax) 212.682.3010, info@wyca.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 12/04/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Johnson, et al. v. Siemens AG, et al.

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-05310
JUDGE NAME: Hon. John Gleeson
DATE FILED: 05/17/2010	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/08/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 03/17/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY) 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631-367-7100, (fax) 631-367-1173, info@csgrr.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 05/17/2010
Memorandum and Order
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 03/31/2011
Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 05/11/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/11/2011

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

�