Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/06/2005 (Other)

Filing Date: May 21, 2004

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, on August 4, 2005, plaintiffs determined that they would not file an amended complaint. On September 6, 2005, the Court entered a stipulated dismissal with prejudice.

Previously, on May 21, 2004, the Company, along with its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, were named as defendants in a federal class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. That action was brought allegedly on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who purchased the Company’s common stock, and asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based principally on allegations that the Company made misrepresentations regarding its business. Six similar class actions have since been filed in the Northern District of California. The Court subsequently appointed a lead plaintiff and ordered that those actions be consolidated. In October 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, on behalf of those who purchased the Company’s stock between October 16, 2003 and April 16, 2004. On July 5, 2005, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend within thirty days.

The origjnal complaint charges that Lexar 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 July 17, 2003 and April 16, 2004. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company underestimated the impact and the timing of competitive pricing moves in the flash memory market; (2) that the Company's preferential supply relationship with Samsung failed to insulate Lexar from fluctuations in pricing and availability of flash memory, which negatively affected the Company's product margins; and (3) the Company lacked sufficient royalty income to offset product gross margins pressure. On April 15, 2004, Lexar reported financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2004. After several quarters of relatively stable average selling prices, second quarter price declines were sizeable. These declines were occurring sooner than Lexar had previously anticipated. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Lexar fell $5.03 per share or 32.56 percent on April 16, 2004, to close at $10.42 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Photography
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LEXR
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 #: 04-CV-2013
JUDGE: Hon. Samuel Conti
DATE FILED: 05/21/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/17/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/16/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Geller Rudman, PLLC.
    197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Geller Rudman, PLLC., FL 33432
    561.750.3000 888.262.3131 · info@geller-rudman.com
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. Green & Jigarjian LLP
    235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, Green & Jigarjian LLP, CA 94104
    415.477.6700 415.477.6710 ·
  4. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  5. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
    335 Central Avenue, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence), NY 11559
    516.374.0707 516.295.3473 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  6. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  7. 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 #: 04-CV-2013
JUDGE: Hon. Samuel Conti
DATE FILED: 10/29/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/16/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/16/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Green Welling LLP (San Francisco)
    235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, Green Welling LLP (San Francisco), CA 94104
    415.477.6700 415.477.6710 · gw@classcounsel.com
  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