Micron Not Free Of Investors' Price-Fixing Claims

Micron Not Free Of Investors' Price-Fixing Claims - 2/24/2009 , Class Action News, Class Action, Securities News, shareholder class action, claim, litigation, securities action, common stock'>

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright © 2001
Stanford Law School

2009 News and Press Releases

SEARCH

News	News 2009
HEADLINES \| SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSALS \| COURT FILINGS LINKS TO OTHER NEWS \| NEWS ARCHIVE	HEADLINES ARCHIVED SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSALS ARCHIVED

DISMISSAL NEWS:

Micron Not Free Of Investors' Price-Fixing Claims
Evan Weinberger

Securities Law 360. February 24, 2009
_________________________________________________________________________

EXCERPT: A federal judge has rejected a bid by Micron Technology Inc. to shrink the size of a class of shareholders suing over stock losses stemming from the company's alleged participation in a dynamic random access memory chip price-fixing scheme. Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho ruled Monday that Micron could still be held liable for damages by members of the class whose allegations predate any public knowledge of the price-fixing scheme. The Boise, Idaho-based maker of dynamic random access memory chips argued that under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc., claims made prior to Micron's acknowledgment of the antitrust investigation could not survive. In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the private right of action in a securities fraud case does not extend to third-party companies or individuals who do not make alleged misstatements or perform misleading actions on which investors relied. Micron argued that plaintiffs in the early part of the class had no basis for claims because there was no public knowledge of the scheme at the time. Judge Winmill ruled that Micron read the Stoneridge decision incorrectly, saying that the decision only applied to secondary actors in a scheme, not the masterminds of the scheme itself. ... The case is City of Roseville et al. v. Micron Technology Inc. et al., case number 06-cv-00085, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.

Back to News page | Back to Archived News 2009 page | Back to Top

�