Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/01/2011 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: September 30, 2004

The original complaint charges Infineon and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Infineon manufactures and markets a wide variety of polymer and specialty products.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements about Infineon's business and prospects and concealed Infineon's involvement in price fixing activities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants concealed the following material adverse facts from the investing public: (a) from on or about July 1, 1999 until on or about June 15, 2002, Infineon and its co-conspirators entered into and engaged in a conspiracy in the United States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of Dynamic Random Access Memory ('DRAM') to be sold to certain original equipment manufacturers ('OEMs') of personal computers and servers; (b) the conspiracy consisted of a continuing agreement, understanding, and concert of action among Infineon and its co-conspirators, the substantial terms of which were to agree to fix the prices for DRAM to be sold to certain OEMs; and (c) for the purpose of forming and carrying out the conspiracy, Infineon and its co-conspirators: (i) participated in meetings, conversations, and communications in the United States and elsewhere to discuss the prices of DRAM to be sold to certain OEMs; (ii) agreed during those meetings, conversations, and communications to charge prices for DRAM at certain levels to be sold to certain OEMs; (iii) issued price quotations in accordance with the agreements reached; and (iv) exchanged information on sales of DRAM to certain OEM customers for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon prices and artificially inflating the Company's revenue and profits. As a result, the Company's shares traded at inflated prices, enabling the Company to consummate a $5.5 billion IPO and a $1 billion bond offering, together with stock-for-stock acquisitions using the Company's inflated shares as currency.

On July 19, 2004, defendants acknowledged the seriousness of a Justice Department investigation into Infineon's price fixing practices when they announced they had recorded a $190 million charge for the antitrust investigation. Then, on September 15, 2004, the Associated Press issued an article which stated: 'German computer chipmaker Infineon Technologies AG has agreed to plead guilty to price fixing and will pay a $160 million fine.... In a plea agreement filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Infineon acknowledged conspiring with other companies to fix prices of widely used computer memory products between July 1999 and June 2002.'

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008, between September and November 2004, seven securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and current or former officers in U.S. federal district courts, later consolidated in the Northern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company’s publicly-traded securities who purchased them during the period from March 2000 to July 2004 (the “Securities Class Actions”). The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of the U.S. securities laws and asserts that the defendants made materially false and misleading public statements about the Company’s historical and projected financial results and competitive position because they did not disclose the Company’s alleged participation in DRAM price-fixing activities and that, by fixing the price of DRAM, defendants manipulated the price of the Company’s securities, thereby injuring its shareholders. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.

In September 2006, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In March 2007, pursuant to a stipulation agreed with the defendants, the plaintiffs withdrew the second amended complaint and were granted a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in July 2007. A hearing was held on November 19, 2007. On January 25, 2008, the court entered into an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss the Securities Class Action complaint. The court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ claims under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and dismissed the claim under § 20A of the act with prejudice. On August 13, 2008 the court denied a motion of the Company for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. On August 25, 2008, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings against foreign purchasers, i.e., proposed class members who are neither residents nor citizens of the United States who bought securities of the Company on an exchange outside the United States. On August 25, 2008, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to certify the class.

On September 5, 2008, a notice was filed confirming the withdrawal of two lead plaintiffs. On November 10, 2008, a motion to intervene was filed naming an additional lead plaintiff. On March 6, 2009, the Court entered an Order by Judge James Ware denying the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings, granting the motion to certify the class, and granting the motion to intervene.

On May 13, 2009, Judge James Ware signed the Order staying the case. According to the Order, on May 5, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Defendant permission to undertake an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s March 6, 2009 Order granting class certification. (See Docket Item No. 291.) In light of this appeal, the parties have filed a stipulation agreeing to postpone development of a plan with respect to class notice. (Docket Item No. 292.) Given that resolution of issues surrounding the propriety of class treatment are central to this action, the Court finds that this case should be stayed pending resolution of Defendant’s appeal by the Ninth Circuit.

On September 14, 2010, the Court entered the Mandate from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs were given leave to file a Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint, which they did on November 8, 2010. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint on December 10, 2010. The motion was granted in part and denied in part on March 17, 2011.

On June 20, 2011, a Stipulation of Settlement was filed. The proposed settlement is in the amount of $6.2 million in cash. On November 2, 2011, Judge James Ware granted the motion for settlement, motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved the plan of allocation. The action is now dismissed with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: Germany

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: IFX
Company Market: New York SE
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-04156
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 09/30/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/13/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/19/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-04156
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 11/08/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/13/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/19/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date