Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/23/2011 (Trial Verdict)

Filing Date: March 27, 2002

According to the Judgment signed by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on March 21, 2008, this action came on for trial before the Court and a jury. Based on the Court's earlier orders and the jury's verdict, the Court now issues its final judgment. It is hereby ordered and adjudged that: (1) Plaintiffs take nothing; (2) the action is dismissed on the merits; and (3) Defendants shall recover of Plaintiffs their costs of action.

According to a press release dated November 27, 2007, a jury found Tuesday that JDS Uniphase Corp. and four former executives are not liable for shareholders' losses in the dot-com meltdown because the company could not have foreseen its staggering losses. The jury in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California returned a unanimous verdict clearing the Milpitas-based maker of fiber-optic networking equipment and its executives of all allegations of securities fraud and insider trading, JDS Uniphase said in a statement. "The jury concluded that while things for the company went sour in 2001, people on the inside did not know it was coming," lawyer Michael Shepard, who represents [the] former chief executive.

In an article dated October 24, 2007, as a trial over the alleged securities fraud at JDS Uniphase Corp. kicked off on Tuesday, attorneys representing investors reportedly argued that the beleaguered telecommunications company shielded evidence of plummeting sales even as its top officers and directors cashed their shares, reaping billions of dollars in profits. … The trial – which stems from a securities class action filed by investors – is expected to last for 19 days, Dow Jones said, citing LaMarr.

On August 24, 2007, the Court issued the Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants JDS, Straus, Muller and Abbe's Motion For Summary Judgment. Further, according to the Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant Kalkhoven's Motion For Summary Judgment. The Court defers ruling on the Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion For Partial Summary Judgment.

According to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, on July 26, 2002, the Northern District of California consolidated all the securities actions then filed in or transferred to that court under the title In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-02-1486 CW, and appointed the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds as Lead Plaintiff. In January 2005, the Court denied the motion to dismiss claims against the Company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and Charles Abbe, and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss claims against Kevin Kalkhoven. Defendants subsequently filed answers denying liability for the claims asserted against them. On December 21, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Fact and expert discovery in In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation is substantially complete. Each party has noticed and taken depositions of experts and both party and non-party witnesses. On April 26, 2007, Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims against them. Those motions are scheduled to be heard on July 26, 2007. The next case management conference is also scheduled for July 26, 2007, and trial is set to begin on October 1, 2007.

The complaint charges JDS Uniphase, certain of its officers and directors and
its controlling shareholder with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. JDS Uniphase is a provider of fiber optic components and modules which
form the building blocks for fiber optic networks. The complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants were motivated to inflate the value of JDS
Uniphase stock so that the Company could make acquisitions using stock and so
the individual defendants, who are the top officers and directors of JDS
Uniphase, could sell their shares. During the Class Period, defendants
represented that demand was accelerating and the Company's only problem was its
ability to manufacture enough product to meet demand. Defendants represented
that they had outstanding visibility, including demand for the Company's
products through the end of fiscal 2001 ("F01," ended on 6/30/01), and that JDS
Uniphase had 80 engineers whose job it was to monitor customers and their
inventory levels and as a result, JDS Uniphase would learn about any slowdown in
demand early. The Company also misrepresented the success of its largest
acquisitions, including Optical Coating Labs, Cronos Integrated Microsystems,
E-Tek Dynamics and SDL Inc. As a result of these positive statements, JDS
Uniphase stock traded as high as $146.32.

The Individual Defendants (all of whom were top officers and directors of the
Company) and its controlling shareholder took advantage of the inflation,
selling or disposing of 25.2 million shares of their JDS Uniphase stock for
proceeds of $2.1 billion. Then, on 7/26/01, JDS Uniphase announced the
restatement of its 3rdQ F01 results, the write-off of $44 billion in goodwill
associated with its acquisitions, inventory write-downs and that F01 EPS would
be only$0.16 and that it would incur a loss of $0.15 in F02. On this news, JDS
Uniphase shares dropped to as low as $7.90 -- or more than 94% lower than the
Class Period high of $146.32.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: JDSU
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 #: 02-CV-01486
JUDGE: Hon. Claudia Wilken
DATE FILED: 03/27/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/27/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/26/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  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 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
  4. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA)
    701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA), WA 98014
    206.521.0080 206.521.0166 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  5. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  6. Holzer & Holzer, LLC
    1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107, Holzer & Holzer, LLC, GA 30338
    770.392.0090 770.392-0029 · mfistel@holzerlaw.com
  7. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (Morristown, NJ)
    237 South Street, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (Morristown, NJ), NJ 07962
    973.656.0222 973.401.1114 · info@kaplanfox.com
  8. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA)
    100 Pine Street, 26th Floor, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA), CA 94111
    415.772.4700 415.677.1233 · info@kaplanfox.com
  9. Keller Rohrback LLP (Seattle)
    1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Keller Rohrback LLP (Seattle), WA 98101-3052
    800.776.6044 206.623.3384 · investor@kellerrohrback.com
  10. LeBlanc & Waddell, LLC
    201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3204, LeBlanc & Waddell, LLC, LA 70170
    504.523.9900 504.522.9300 ·
  11. 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
  12. 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 ·
  13. 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
  14. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
  15. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  16. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  17. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  18. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
    1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego), PA 19103
    215.496.0300 215.496.6611 ·
  19. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
    10940 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 2300, Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), CA 90024
    310.209.2468 ·
  20. The Emerson Firm
    2228 Cottondale Avenue, Suite 100, The Emerson Firm, AR 72202
    800.663.9817 501.907.2556 · epllp@emersonpoynter.com
  21. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
    The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), NY 10126
    212.682.3025 212.682.3010 · info@wyca.com
  22. 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 #: 02-CV-01486
JUDGE: Hon. Claudia Wilken
DATE FILED: 08/08/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/27/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/26/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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 ·
  2. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  3. Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
    100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date