Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/10/2004 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: October 16, 2001

The original complaint was filed alleging that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between July 14, 2000 and October 17, 2000, thereby artificially inflating the price of Teradyne common stock. The complaint alleges that Teradyne was experiencing declining orders in its semiconductors testing systems division, which would cause the Company's growth rate to slow from historical levels. Defendants concealed this adverse fact from investors, so that the Company could complete the acquisition of Herco Technology Corporation and Perception Laminates, Inc., d/b/a/ Synthane Taylor, using artificially inflated Teradyne common stock as currency. When the truth about Teradyne's business was revealed to the public, the price of Teradyne common stock dropped precipitously, causing plaintiff and the members of the Class to suffer substantial damages.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2004, Teradyne and two of its executive officers were named as defendants in three purported class action complaints that were filed in Federal District Court, Boston, Massachusetts, in October and November 2001. The court consolidated the cases and has appointed three lead plaintiffs. On November 8, 2002, plaintiffs filed and served a consolidated amended class action complaint. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making, during the period from July 14, 2000 until October 17, 2000, material misrepresentations and omissions to the investing public regarding our business operations and future prospects. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including compensatory damages and recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the complaint on February 7, 2003. On January 16, 2004, the U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended to the U.S. District Court that the Company’s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety be allowed without prejudice. On February 2, 2004, the lead plaintiffs filed an objection to the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Company filed its response to the lead plaintiff’s objection. On September 8, 2004, the U.S. District Court adopted the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissed the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety without prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TER
Company Market: New York SE
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: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 01-CV-11789
JUDGE: Hon. George A. O'Toole Jr.
DATE FILED: 10/16/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/14/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/17/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  3. Moulton & Gans LLP
    133 Federal Street, Moulton & Gans LLP, MA 2110
    617.369.7979 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 01-CV-11789
JUDGE: Hon. George A. O'Toole Jr.
DATE FILED: 11/08/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/14/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/17/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  2. 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
No Document Title Filing Date