Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/29/2002 (Other)

Filing Date: September 03, 1998

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2002, on March 22, 2002, the plaintiffs in the action voluntarily dismissed their own appeal, thereby resolving the case in Cymer's favor and rendering the judgment in favor of Cymer in the district court final.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, the Company is named as defendant in several stockholder class action lawsuits that were filed in September and October, 1998 in the federal district courts of California. Some of the Company’s officers and directors are also named as defendants. The plaintiffs represent a class of all persons who purchased the Company’s stock between April 24, 1997 and September 26, 1997. The complaints allege claims under the federal securities laws, and the plaintiffs claim that the Company made various material misrepresentations and omissions during this period of time. The complaints do not seek a specific dollar amount for damages. The court consolidated all of the complaints into one single action and a class representative was appointed. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in early August, 1999. On November 5, 1999, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss this consolidated complaint for the plaintiffs' failure to state a cause of action. On April 1, 2000, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated complaint on June 5, 2000. The Company then moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint on August 4, 2000. On October 1, 2001, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint with prejudice and entered a judgment in favor of all defendants and against plaintiffs. On October 30, 2001, the plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The original Complaint names Cymer and certain of the Company's officers and directors as defendants, alleging that these parties violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by originating a series of materially misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's profitability during the Class Period. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants misrepresented the rapid acceptance of deep ultraviolet ("DUV") technology in the manufacture of semiconductor chips, the strong demand for Cymer's Series 5000 excimer DUV lasers, the Company's strong backlog of shippable orders and the lack of technical problems and defects in the Company's lasers. In addition, Cymer touted 40% - 50% EPS growth over the next several years and 1998 EPS of $1.15-$1.20. These misrepresentations had the aggregate effect of artificially inflating the share prices of Cymer's stock to a Class Period high of $49-1/4, allowing Cymer's top insiders to sell over 1.8 million shares of Cymer stock for proceeds of more than $48 million and the Company itself to complete a $173 million convertible debenture offering.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CYMI
Company Market: NASDAQ
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: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 98-CV-1599
JUDGE: Hon. Napoleon A. Jones
DATE FILED: 09/03/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/24/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/26/1997
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
    10940 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 2300, Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), CA 90024
    310.209.2468 ·
  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: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 98-CV-1599
JUDGE: Hon. Napoleon A. Jones
DATE FILED: 06/02/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/24/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/26/1997
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
    299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, NY 10171
    212.894.7200 212.894.7272 · info@entwistle-law.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Los Angeles, CA)
    355 S Grand Ave - Ste 4170, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Los Angeles, CA), CA 90071-3172
    213.617.9007 ·
  3. 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