Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 12/30/2016 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 04, 2016

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) that the AIX R6 MOCVD systems that were to be shipped to the Company’s large Chinese customer (San’an Optoelectronics) did not meet the customer’s specific qualification requirements; (2) that, as such, the Company’s agreement with San’an Optoelectronics to ship 50 of the Company’s AIX R6 MOCVD systems to San’an Optoelectronics was unlikely to be executed; (3) that the impending failure to execute the original agreement would have a substantial negative impact on the Company’s prospects; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about AIXTRON’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 9, 2016, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on June 8.

On December 20, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Judgment was entered on December 30.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: Germany

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AIXG
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 16-CV-00025
JUDGE: Hon. Analisa Torres
DATE FILED: 01/04/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/25/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/09/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
  2. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 16-CV-00025
JUDGE: Hon. Analisa Torres
DATE FILED: 06/08/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/25/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/09/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
No Document Title Filing Date