The complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, the complaint
alleges that defendants issued and maintained a "Buy" recommendation on Lantronix securities without any rational economic basis; failed to disclose that they were issuing and maintaining these recommendations to
obtain investment banking business; and concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that prevented them from providing independent and objective analysis. The Complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact, the price of Lantronix securities was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period causing plaintiff and the other members of the Class to suffer damages.
On April 12, 2004, the Court entered the Order captioning the case In Re Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. (Lantronix, Inc.) Analyst Securities Litigation, and appointing The Powers Group as Lead Plaintiff and approving Powers Group's selection of the law firms of Rabin, Murray & Frank L.L.P. and Weiss & Yourman as Co-Lead Counsel. On July 22, 2005, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On December 16, 2005, the Court entered the Order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. On November 8, 2006, the Court entered the Order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
On February 8, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order granting class certification and to decertify the class.
According to a press release dated February 27, 2008, a federal judge on Tuesday decertified a class of plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Credit Suisse First Boston over allegedly misleading statements made by one of its former analysts, ruling that the plaintiffs could not show that the statements had caused their losses.
On June 10, 2008, the action was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs.