Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/12/2000 (Other)

Filing Date: March 10, 1999

According to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2000, between March 10, 1999 and April 22, 1999, AMD and certain individual officers of AMD were named as defendants in a number of lawsuits that were consolidated under Ellis Investment Co., Ltd., et al v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. Following appointment of lead counsel, the case was re-named Hall et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. On September 5, 2000, the parties stipulated to and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order whereby all plaintiffs' claims and causes of action against all defendants were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

The original Complaint asserts that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The lawsuit alleges that defendants' material misrepresentations and omissions caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period. In summary, the Complaint states that during the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the demand for AMD's ability to produce high speed K6 microprocessors that could compete with industry giant Intel's Pentium II chips. Defendants failed to disclose that they had serious design flaws and production problems that severely restricted the number of 350+ MHz K6 chips that they could produce. The inability to produce a sufficient volume of high speed chips caused AMD to have to sell its chips at lower prices, severely depressing its earnings. Even when defendants publicly disclosed during the Class Period production problems with the high speed K6 microprocessors, they claimed that the "production glitch" was behind them and that they could increase production in the first quarter of 1999. These statements were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis because defendants knew that the design and production problems were continuing and that AMD could not produce the high speed chips in the announced amounts. Defendants' announcement on March 8, 1999 that it would fall short of its shipment goals and suffer a significant loss for the first quarter, was laying off 300 employees and would take charges in the first quarter and second quarters of 1999 shocked the market, causing the price for AMD's stock to plummet from a high of $32 during the Class Period to $16 following the announcement.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AMD
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 99-CV-1102
JUDGE: Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman
DATE FILED: 03/10/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/12/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/13/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
    830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP, NY 10022
    212.317.2300 ·
  2. Lionel Z. Glancy
    1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 308, Lionel Z. Glancy, CA 90067
    310.201.9150 ·
  3. Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA)
    10940 Wilshire Blvd - 24th Floor, Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA), CA 90024
    310.208.2800 310.209.2348 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 99-CV-20518
JUDGE: Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman
DATE FILED: 01/21/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/13/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/09/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
    830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP, NY 10022
    212.317.2300 ·
  2. Lionel Z. Glancy
    1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 308, Lionel Z. Glancy, CA 90067
    310.201.9150 ·
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
    100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date