Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/23/2005 (Other)

Filing Date: December 28, 2000

According to a press release dated February 10, 2005, Foundry Networks(R), Inc. announced that plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their appeal of the judgment rendered in favor of Foundry Networks and certain of its officers in the shareholder class action entitled In re Foundry Networks Securities Litigation, pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

As previously reported in the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, in December 2000, several similar shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against Foundry and certain of its officers in the United States Court for the Northern District of California, following Foundry’s announcement of its anticipated financial results for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2000. The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated by the District Court, under the caption In re Foundry Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-00-4823-MMC, lead plaintiffs were selected as required by law and such plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint which alleged violations of federal securities laws and purported to seek damages on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased Foundry’s common stock during the period from September 7, 2000 to December 19, 2000. The Company then brought the first of four successful motions to dismiss the complaint. However, while the District Court granted each of the motions, it also provided plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On August 29, 2003 (after 4 prior dismissals with leave to amend) the District Court granted the Company motion to dismiss the case with prejudice and without leave to amend and, on September 2, 2003, entered judgment in favor of the Company, dismissing the plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint. On September 29, 2003 plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the judgment with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has directed plaintiff to file its appeal brief by January 15, 2004

The original complaint stated that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by concealing and misrepresenting the problems it was experiencing due to the problems many of its customers were having raising money and the impact this was causing and would cause on Foundry's future revenue growth. The complaint alleges Foundry concealed this information so that the individual defendants could sell additional shares of their Foundry stock before the bottom fell out of Foundry's stock price. Thus, according to the complaint, defendants made positive but false statements about Foundry's business and future revenues during October and November 2000, artificially inflating the price of the company's stock during the class period.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FDRY
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 00-CV-4823
JUDGE: Hon. Samuel Conti
DATE FILED: 12/28/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/18/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/19/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  2. Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA)
    225 Broadway, Suite 1900, Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92010
    619.702.7350 619.702.7351 ·
  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
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 00-CV-4823
JUDGE: Hon. Samuel Conti
DATE FILED: 08/29/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/06/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/19/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  4. 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 ·
  5. 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
No Document Title Filing Date