Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/02/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 07, 2003

According to the Order, dated January 30, 2004, the U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Defendants’ Motion to dismiss lead plaintiff’s Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. On March 2, 2004, the Court entered the Order dismissing the action.

The original complaint charges Atmel and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused Atmel's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements, all the time concealing that Atmel was selling defective chips to its customers which would lead to product recalls, repairs and loss of customer relationships. While the Company's stock price was artificially inflated due to defendants' false statements, defendants sold more than $500 million in notes in a private placement offering. Atmel later registered these securities for resale via a Registration Statement. On July 31, 2002, media reports indicated that the Company had been sued by a major customer, Seagate Technology Inc., for selling defective chips which led to defects in millions of disk drives. On this news, the Company's stock price declined to $2.96.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ATML
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 #: 03-CV-0558
JUDGE: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
DATE FILED: 02/07/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/20/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/31/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
  2. Chitwood & Harley LLP
  3. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
  5. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
  6. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
  7. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
  8. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
  9. The Emerson Firm
  10. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-0558
JUDGE: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
DATE FILED: 09/02/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/20/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/31/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
  2. Girard & Green LLP
  3. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Bala Cynwyd)
  4. Lionel Z. Glancy
  5. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
  7. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
  8. Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA)
  9. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date