Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/07/2007 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: September 09, 2005

On July 2, 2007, the Lead Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Pension Fund filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On August 8, 2008 the USCA upheld the lower court's ruling of dismissal and the case was closed.

According to a press release dated June 18, 2007, Hutchinson Technology Inc. and its officials June 4 won dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota of a class securities fraud suit alleging that the computer component manufacturer's stock price was artificially inflated due to too-low return allowances and misrepresentations as to customer demand (In re Hutchinson Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, D. Minn., Case No. 05-CV-2095 (PJS/JJG), 6/4/07). In the course of his opinion, Judge Patrick Schiltz declared that the group pleading doctrine--which permits plaintiffs to attribute collective statements such as press releases and public filings to individuals with direct involvement in the every day business of the company--is no longer viable in the wake of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 25, 2006, the Company and six of its present executive officers, two of whom are directors, are named as defendants in a Consolidated Complaint filed by several investors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 1, 2006. On June 30, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. Briefing on the motion is underway. The motion is scheduled for hearing on December 4, 2006.

The original Complaint alleges that Hutchinson violated federal securities laws. Specifically, Hutchinson made positive statements concerning its history of beating guidance issued by the defendants and its success in manufacturing and marketing its products. Defendants' statements were materially false and misleading because defendants overstated the demand for Hutchinson's products, defendants failed to disclose that a shift in the mix of products toward new, low-yielding products was negatively impacting the Company's business and prospects, and defendants failed to disclose that they had not implemented an adequate system of internal controls. As a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements that Hutchinson was operating according to plan, and their guidance lacked any reasonable basis in fact. While, the price of Hutchinson common stock was artificially inflated, defendants sold their personally-held shares of Hutchinson stock for more than $12.1 million in proceeds.

The complaint further alleges that on or around August 30, 2005, Hutchinson issued a press release announcing lowered guidance for the fourth quarter 2005. The Company stated that earnings would be $0.05 per share, compared to previous guidance of $0.65, and that the Company's gross margins would fall as low as 19%, significantly lower than the Company's previous estimate of as high as 30%. On this news, Hutchinson stock fell $5.35 per share, or 17%, from its closing price of $31.51 on August 29, 2005, to $26.16 on August 30, 2005.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Storage Devices
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HTCH
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: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 05-CV-2095
JUDGE: Hon. Michael J. Davis
DATE FILED: 09/09/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/04/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/29/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Diserio Martin O'Connor & Castiglioni LLP
    1 Atlantic Street, Diserio Martin O'Connor & Castiglioni LLP, CT 06901
    203.358.0800 203.348.2321 ·
  2. Dyer & Shuman, LLP
    801 East 17th Avenue, Dyer & Shuman, LLP, CO 80218-1417
    303.861.3003 800.711.6483 · info@dyershuman.com
  3. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  4. Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
    Esquire at 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., PA 19046
    215.886.1900 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  5. 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
  6. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  7. Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P.
    Suite 301, 660 Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., DC 20003-4335
    202.544.9840 202.544.9850 ·
  8. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  9. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  10. 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
COURT: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 05-CV-2095
JUDGE: Hon. Michael J. Davis
DATE FILED: 05/01/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/04/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/29/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Diserio Martin O'Connor & Castiglioni LLP
    1 Atlantic Street, Diserio Martin O'Connor & Castiglioni LLP, CT 06901
    203.358.0800 203.348.2321 ·
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  3. Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law
    E-1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law, MN 55101
    800.465.1592 651.297.6543 · info@ralawfirm.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date