Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/27/2003 (Other)

Filing Date: August 10, 2001

In January 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. overturned the jury decision in the underlying patent infringement case, thereby mooting this Securities Class Action. Based on this facts, the Lead Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the Class Action. On May 27 2003, the court accepted plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of the suit by issuing an order “Granting Voluntary Dismissal.” The court stated that it was satisfied that there has been no settlement or compromise of any claims; no payment, has been made or promised directly or indirectly to any plaintiff or any lawyer representing any plaintiff and that Lead Plaintiff's motion is well-founded; and dismissal will not prejudice the absent putative class members; and that the action is dismissed with prejudice.

The original complaint filed in the Action alleges that defendants misrepresented that Rambus owned certain enforceable patents when, in fact, Rambus obtained the patents through fraud. These allegations were based upon the evidentiary record developed in a federal lawsuit in Virginia titled Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG ("Infineon"), which resulted in a jury verdict that Rambus had committed actual fraud.

More specifically, the original complaint alleges that Rambus and certain of its officers and directors disseminated materially false and misleading statements concerning, among other things: (i) the undisclosed fact that Rambus had engaged in fraudulent activity in order to obtain purportedly valuable patents on SDRAM computer memory and memory related technologies which enable semiconductor memory devices to keep pace with faster generations of processors and controllers; (ii) the true enforceability and viability of Rambus' SDRAM patents and the true risks involved with investing in Rambus stock during the Class Period; (iii) the effects these adverse undisclosed actions were having and would continue to have on the Company's growth and earnings prospects; and (iv) that Company insiders, certain of which are named as defendants in the action, sold or otherwise disposed of over $125 million of their privately held Rambus stock while in possession of undisclosed material adverse information regarding the true validity of the Company's SDRAM patents, including the undisclosed fact that such patents were obtained by defendants' fraud.

In May of 2003, the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System were appointed lead plaintiffs in a
securities fraud class action filed against Rambus and certain of its
top officers and directors.

On January 29, 2003, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the jury verdict against Rambus in the Infineon case, finding that Rambus's conduct did not constitute actual fraud. Based on this ruling, Lead Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the Class Action with prejudice. As stated above, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion and dismissed the Class Action.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RMBS
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 #: 01-CV-3112
JUDGE: Hon. Wayne D. Brazil
DATE FILED: 08/10/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/11/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/09/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Beatie & Osborne LLP
    599 Lexington Avenue, 42nd Floor, Beatie & Osborne LLP, NY 10022
    212.888.9000 212.888.9664 ·
  2. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (CA)
    425 California Street, Suite 2025, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (CA), CA 94104
    415.433.3200 415.433.6382 ·
  3. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego)
    12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  4. Bull & Lifshitz
    18 East 41st St., Bull & Lifshitz, NY 10017
    212.213.6222 212.213.9405 ·
  5. 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 ·
  6. Johnson & Perkinson
    1690 Williston Road, Johnson & Perkinson, VT 05403
    802.862.0030 802.862.0060 · JPLAW@adelphia.net
  7. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  8. Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York)
    500 Fifth Avenue, Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York), NY 10110
    212.608.1900 212.719.4677 · info@lshllp.com
  9. 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
  10. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  11. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  12. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
  13. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
  14. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 01-CV-3112
JUDGE: Hon. Wayne D. Brazil
DATE FILED: 03/25/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/18/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/09/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham & Paskowitz
    The Lincoln Building 60 East 42nd St., 47th Fl.,, Abraham & Paskowitz, NY 10165
    212.692.0555 212.557.6151 · info@ClassActionsOnline.com
  2. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego)
    12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  3. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date