Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/02/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 12, 2002

On November 2, 2004, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment signed by U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. The Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement was approved, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

According to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement filed on July 21, 2004, a Settlement Fund was established in the amount of $4.25 million.

In a press release dated June 17, 2004, the parties reached a tentative settlement for several securities class action lawsuits against the company and some of its officers and directors. The Singapore-based manufacturing company said in its annual report filed Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it withdrew its motion to dismiss as a result of the settlement, which was reached last month. The terms of the deal weren't disclosed in the filing. The lawsuits, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, were filed between June and August 2002. The actions were brought on behalf of those who acquired Flextronics' ordinary shares between Jan. 18, 2001, and June 4, 2002, the filing said….The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the suits without prejudice in November 2003. But earlier this year, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which led to Flextronics' motion to dismiss on March 10. The company said this week that the settlement is to be funded entirely by its officers' and directors' insurance. The settlement agreement is subject to further negotiation, formal documentation and court approval, according to the filing.

On May 6, 2003, the case was transferred from the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California.

The original Complaint alleges that Flextronics and certain of its officers 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 October 2,
2001 and June 4, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Flextronics securities. Throughout the Class Period, as alleged in the complaint, Flextronics consistently represented that its business was
thriving in the global electronics, telecommunications and handheld
device markets. Unbeknownst to investors, however, Flextronics was suffering from a host of undisclosed adverse factors that were negatively impacting its business and which would cause it to report declining financial results, materially less than market expectations. On June 4, 2002, the final day of the Class Period -- and only months after certain officers and directors unloaded over $500 million of Company shares priced at almost $26.00 per share upon unsuspecting investors -- Defendants shocked the market when they finally revealed that the restructuring, which was purportedly paid for in October 2001 and substantially completed thereafter, was still far from complete. Defendants admitted that there were at least an additional $150 million in restructuring charges that had to be recorded. In addition,
Defendants also stated that they could not possibly meet the Company's
previous earnings and revenue forecasts for its first fiscal quarter 2003.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: Singapore

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FLEX
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-4497
JUDGE: Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan
DATE FILED: 06/12/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/02/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/04/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, 42 Street)
    60 East 42 Street, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, 42 Street), NY 10021
    212.687.6655 ·
  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. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-2102
JUDGE: Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan
DATE FILED: 06/06/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/18/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/04/2002
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. 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 ·
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  4. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
    10940 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 2300, Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), CA 90024
    310.209.2468 ·
No Document Title Filing Date