Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/27/2005 (Other)

Filing Date: September 27, 2001

According to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal heard the matter on February 17, 2005 and affirmed the District Court’s ruling in an unpublished decision dated April 4, 2005. Plaintiffs will not seek further review and the matter is concluded.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, beginning on September 27, 2001, three shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer. These lawsuits are substantially identical, and purport to bring suit on behalf of persons who purchased the Company’s publicly traded common stock between July 19, 2000, and September 28, 2000. The complaints allege violations of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2002, which was heard by the Court on September 13, 2002. On December 11, 2002, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, with leave to Plaintiffs to amend their complaint within thirty days. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 31, 2003, and on March 17, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court heard the Company’s motion on July 11, 2003 and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice on August 12, 2003. Plaintiffs appealed the ruling.

The original complaint was filed charging Apple and its CEO with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that on 7/18-19/00, Apple introduced its new Power Mac G4 Dual Processor, G4 Cube and iMac personal computers, representing that they were exceptionally powerful, fast and attractive, coming with exceptionally attractive designs and containing new and revolutionary features. At this time, Apple represented that the development of these new products was completed, they were ready for mass production and would be available in quantity very shortly. Apple claimed this would result in Apple achieving strong revenue and earnings per share ("EPS") growth in its 4thQ F00 (to end 9/30/00) and F01. As a result, Apple's stock climbed to a Class Period high of $64-1/8 in early 9/00, when four top Apple officers sold 370,000 shares of their Apple stock for $22 million. Suddenly, just 20-25 trading days later, on 9/28/00, Apple shocked investors by revealing a huge 4thQ F00 revenue and EPS shortfall due to very poor sales to its education (K-12) market and poor consumer acceptance of its new personal computer products (some of which had been late to market, had defects and lacked features which were essential for market success), resulting in the accumulation of excessive inventories of finished goods in Apple's distribution channel and Apple having to cancel component part orders and, thereby, incur financial penalties. As rumors of Apple's troubles circulated prior to and then following Apple's shocking disclosure, Apple's stock collapsed from $61-3/64 on 9/20/00 to $25-3/8 on 9/29/00, continuing to fall to as low as $17 and then to $13-5/8, as investors absorbed the full impact of these shocking revelations, a stock decline that wiped out over $10 billion of Apple's market capitalization in just a few days.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Hardware
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AAPL
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-3667
JUDGE: Hon. Maria-Elena James
DATE FILED: 09/27/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/19/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/28/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
    P.O. Box 25438, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR), AR 72221-5438
    501.312.8500 501.312.8505 ·
  2. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  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 #: 01-CV-3667
JUDGE: Hon. Maria-Elena James
DATE FILED: 01/31/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/19/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/28/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates (Boca Raton, FL)
    2255 Glades Road Suite 421A, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates (Boca Raton, FL), FL 33431
    561.750.3000 ·
  2. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Bala Cynwyd)
    273 Montgomery Ave. Suite 202, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Bala Cynwyd), PA 19004
    610.660.8000 610.660.8080 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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 ·
  6. 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
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  8. Schwartz, Junell, Campbell & Oathout, LLP (Houston)
    909 Fannin - Suite 2000, Schwartz, Junell, Campbell & Oathout, LLP (Houston), TX 77010
    713.752.0017 713.752.0327 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date