According to the docket, on March 29, 2001, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and allowed plaintiffs until April 26, 2001 to file a further amended complaint. On April 30, 2001, having not filed the amended complaint, the Court entered the Judgment that all named plaintiffs take nothing by their complaint against the defendants and the action was dismissed with prejudice.

The original complaint charges Brightpoint and certain of its officers and/or directors with rendering false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the present and future financial condition and business prospects of the Company, artificially inflating the Company’s common stock during the Class Period.

Specifically, defendants made numerous positive representations throughout the Class Period regarding the current and future financial and business prospects of the Company, while either knowing or recklessly disregarding the following facts: (a) Brightpoint was experiencing significant difficulties in obtaining adequate supplies of product in its Asia-Pacific Region, specifically in China and Taiwan. These difficulties were the result of Brightpoint's own internal inefficiencies that were not affecting the Company's competitors, such as Cellstar; (b) contrary to defendants' representations throughout the Class Period, Brightpoint's Latin America Division was being adversely impacted due to the devaluation of the Brazilian Real which was resulting in lower contribution to consolidated revenues and operating income; (c) the Company's credit policies overseas, primarily in its Asia-Pacific and Latin American divisions, were poorly structured and ineffective for those market places resulting in lost sales to competitors such as Cellstar among others; (d) Brightpoint had entered into unprofitable contracts and agreements with, among others, Iridium Gateways Operators and Kyocera Corporation which were not and would not contribute to the Company's revenues and operating income as represented by defendants; (e) the "special charge" taken by Brightpoint in the first quarter of 1999, as it relates to the amoritization of the Company's start up activities, was the result of defendants' failure to act in accordance with the appropriate SEC and GAAP guidelines; (f) Brightpoint's exit from the "trading" industry would not generate the savings and decrease in costs that defendants' had previously represented. On the contrary, the exit would significantly curtail operating revenues and income for the Company in that defendants failed to disclose to the investing community that Brightpoint would be unable to supplement this revenue stream for many quarters to come; (g) the Company was plagued by internal inefficiencies with respect to forecasting, financial control, and execution; (h) the forecasts of strong revenue and EPS growth for Brightpoint in fiscal 1998 and 1999 were false and not genuinely believed by defendants, as they were aware of the adverse information set forth above which undermined these forecasts; and (i) that as a result of all of the above, Brightpoint was not on track to generate strong revenue and earnings growth in fiscal 1999, but, in fact, was suffering from declining revenue and EPS growth. Thus defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the Company could not fulfill analysts' earnings estimates or achieve the Company's earnings growth, all which they publicly represented were attainable.

The complaint further alleges that the Company's common stock traded as high as $19 15/16 on or January 8, 1999, and was maintained at an artificially inflated level until the Company disclosed the dismal financial condition of the Company on or about March 10, 1999. These disclosures caused the stock price of Brightpoint to plummet from $13 1/16 per share on March 10, 1999, to $6 per share on March 11, 1999, on volume of 32,988,300 shares representing a drop of over 50% in one day and a drop of over 70% from the stock's high of $19 15/16 on January 8, 1999.