Camtek Ltd. engages in the design, development, manufacture and marketing of automated optical inspection systems and related products which are utilized in the printed circuit board (``PCB'') and semiconductor industries to optically inspect various types of electronic product components for manufacturing defects.

The original Complaint charges Camtek and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, Plaintiff claims that Defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning Camtek's business and prospects caused the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants artificially inflated the price of Camtek shares by issuing statements touting positive trends in the PCB and semiconductor markets and the strength of Camtek's business and financial performance, but that Defendants: (i) knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose to the investing public that the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and (ii) misrepresented the Company's business and future prospects. Thus, the Company had no reasonable basis to make projections about its financial results, and as a result, Defendants' Class Period statements concerning the Company's business and future prospects were, at minimum, reckless. The Complaint further alleges that Defendants were further motivated to engage in this course of conduct in order to generate proceeds from a private placement with institutional investors in April 2006 whereby the Company garnered approximately $15 million in proceeds.

On December 21, 2006, Camtek issued a press release announcing the Company's preliminary financial results for fourth quarter 2006. The Company announced that fourth quarter revenue and earnings were expected to be lower than anticipated ``due to lower revenues in the semiconductor segment.'' This news shocked the market, causing shares of Camtek to plummet $1.28 per share -- a more than 22% drop from the previous day's closing price of $5.77 per share -- to close on December 21, 2006, at $4.49 per share on unusually heavy volume of more than 1.4 million shares traded.

On May 9, 2008, a motion to appoint lead Plaintiff and lead Counsel was filed by a certain individual and a proposed order has been entered at the same time. Just as quickly, an Order granting motion to appoint lead Plaintiff and for the approval of lead Counsel was entered on June 09, 2008.

On July 1, 2008, an order in regards to the service of process, filing of and response to consolidated Complaint and case management conference was entered. At the same time, a deadline/ hearings for the case management conference was continued for January 30, 2009.

On August 8, 2008, a stipulation to extend time in which to file Plaintiff’s first amended Complaint was entered. Just as quickly, an order granting Plaintiff an extension of time in which to file an amended Complaint and a briefing schedule on any motion to dismiss was entered on August 18, 2008 by Judge Maxine M. Chesney. Lastly, on August 21, 2008, a motion to withdraw as attorney and motion to withdraw as co-lead Counsel was filed by an individual from the law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. On October 6, 2008, an order granting a motion to withdraw as lead Counsel and time to file amended Complaint was entered. On December 3, 2008, an Order granting Plaintiff's motion for approval of selection as lead Counsel was entered with the court. Lovell & Stewart LLP was appointed lead Counsel.

On January 2, 2009, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed by the lead Plaintiffs. On June 2, 2009, an Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's consolidated amended class action Complaint was entered into the court docket.

On July 13, 2009, the lead Plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended class action Complaint. The Defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action Complaint on August 17, 2009.

On February 2, 2011, an order granting Defendants motion to dismiss second amended Complaint was issued by the Court with leave to amend.

On April 1, 2011, a third consolidated amended class action Complaint was filed by the lead Counsel for Plaintiff.

On August 31, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's third consolidated amended Complaint. Further, the Court denied a motion for leave to file a fourth amended Complaint.