[fw] AMD Sued for Overestimating APU Success to Investors

Some investors in AMD, who purchased company stock between October 27,
2011 and October 18, 2012, filed a class action lawsuit against AMD,
through law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. The class action alleges
that AMD and its officers and directors committed violations of the US
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AMD allegedly misled its investors over
how popular its first generation "Llano" desktop APU would get, claiming
that there were much greater prospects for the APU than it actually
ended up selling.

The law firm detailing its suit writes:

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's business and
prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants made false
statements and/or concealed adverse facts regarding AMD's 32 nanometer
Llano (the "Llano") Accelerated Processing Unit ("APU"), which is a type
of microprocessor that combines AMD's central processing unit and its
graphics processing unit onto a single piece of silicon, including
repeatedly highlighting the "strong" and "significant" interest in,
demand for, and unit shipments of, the Llano APUs, and falsely and
misleadingly representing that AMD's desktop business was in a "strong
position" and that it would "continue to rebound" in 2012. As a result
of defendants' false statements, AMD stock traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

When AMD announced its Q2-2012 results in July of that year, it became
clear that there really wasn't the kind of demand for the APU that AMD
was playing up, AMD in its IR release stated that the markets where it
most expected the APU to sell - China and Europe, had lukewarm reception
of "Llano." This caused a fire-sale of AMD stock, when it saw a fall by
almost 25 percent on extremely heavy trading volume. In the following
quarter, on October 28, 2012, AMD announced a decline in its gross
margins for Q3 2012 declined 31 percent QoQ, due in part to the $100
million inventory write-down, following which AMD stock declined another
17 percent in a flash.

The Plantiff seeks to recover damages, who are represented by Robbins
Geller, a firm that specializes in class action suits against companies
that mislead their investors in a very big way. It would be interesting
to see how this case plays out, given that readers of content on sites
like ours most likely knew how fast AMD's K10 CPU and VLIW5 GPU
architectures were (given that they had each driven AMD's product stack
for several years), and what to expect from Llano, way back in 2011.

Source:
http://www.techpowerup.com/196941/am...investors.html

--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 21) Linux 3.19.3-200.fc21.i686+PAE
^ ^ 22:15:02 up 13:20 0 users load average: 0.00 0.01 0.05
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:18:59 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
wrote:

| Some investors in AMD, who purchased company stock between October 27,
| 2011 and October 18, 2012, filed a class action lawsuit against AMD,
| through law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. The class action alleges
| that AMD and its officers and directors committed violations of the US
| Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AMD allegedly misled its investors over
| how popular its first generation "Llano" desktop APU would get, claiming
| that there were much greater prospects for the APU than it actually
| ended up selling.

So AMD is getting sued because their crystal ball wasn't working very well? It seems
smart investors would rely on sources in addition to those at the company they are
investing in.

Larc

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

Some investors in AMD, who purchased company stock between October
27, 2011 and October 18, 2012, filed a class action lawsuit against
AMD, through law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. The class action
alleges that AMD and its officers and directors committed violations
of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AMD allegedly misled its
investors over how popular its first generation "Llano" desktop APU
would get, claiming that there were much greater prospects for the
APU than it actually ended up selling.

The law firm detailing its suit writes:

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's business and
prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants made false
statements and/or concealed adverse facts regarding AMD's 32
nanometer Llano (the "Llano") Accelerated Processing Unit ("APU"),
which is a type of microprocessor that combines AMD's central
processing unit and its graphics processing unit onto a single piece
of silicon, including repeatedly highlighting the "strong" and
"significant" interest in, demand for, and unit shipments of, the
Llano APUs, and falsely and misleadingly representing that AMD's
desktop business was in a "strong position" and that it would
"continue to rebound" in 2012. As a result of defendants' false
statements, AMD stock traded at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period.

When AMD announced its Q2-2012 results in July of that year, it
became clear that there really wasn't the kind of demand for the APU
that AMD was playing up, AMD in its IR release stated that the
markets where it most expected the APU to sell - China and Europe,
had lukewarm reception of "Llano." This caused a fire-sale of AMD
stock, when it saw a fall by almost 25 percent on extremely heavy
trading volume. In the following quarter, on October 28, 2012, AMD
announced a decline in its gross margins for Q3 2012 declined 31
percent QoQ, due in part to the $100 million inventory write-down,
following which AMD stock declined another 17 percent in a flash.

The Plantiff seeks to recover damages, who are represented by Robbins
Geller, a firm that specializes in class action suits against
companies that mislead their investors in a very big way. It would be
interesting to see how this case plays out, given that readers of
content on sites like ours most likely knew how fast AMD's K10 CPU
and VLIW5 GPU architectures were (given that they had each driven
AMD's product stack for several years), and what to expect from
Llano, way back in 2011.

Source:

http://www.techpowerup.com/196941/am...investors.html

Sounds like sour grapes on their part and people who blame others
because things didn't work out, especially considering that no one
forced them to invest. As I recall, venture capitalists who do that
for a living are feeling successful if just one out of three
investments succeed.

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
Some investors in AMD, who purchased company stock between October 27,
2011 and October 18, 2012, filed a class action lawsuit against AMD,

All they would have to do, is ask anyone with a
modicum of technical knowledge about the product,
to determine it wasn't going to sell. It's not
like the AMD description of APU made a lot of
sense.

AMD should have stated in their public documents,
of the risks associated with the introduction
(technical push) of APUs. Which would cover them
against a class action like this.

Paul

"Yes" wrote in message
...
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

Some investors in AMD, who purchased company stock between October
27, 2011 and October 18, 2012, filed a class action lawsuit against
AMD, through law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. The class action
alleges that AMD and its officers and directors committed violations
of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AMD allegedly misled its
investors over how popular its first generation "Llano" desktop APU
would get, claiming that there were much greater prospects for the
APU than it actually ended up selling.

The law firm detailing its suit writes:

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's business and
prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants made false
statements and/or concealed adverse facts regarding AMD's 32
nanometer Llano (the "Llano") Accelerated Processing Unit ("APU"),
which is a type of microprocessor that combines AMD's central
processing unit and its graphics processing unit onto a single piece
of silicon, including repeatedly highlighting the "strong" and
"significant" interest in, demand for, and unit shipments of, the
Llano APUs, and falsely and misleadingly representing that AMD's
desktop business was in a "strong position" and that it would
"continue to rebound" in 2012. As a result of defendants' false
statements, AMD stock traded at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period.

When AMD announced its Q2-2012 results in July of that year, it
became clear that there really wasn't the kind of demand for the APU
that AMD was playing up, AMD in its IR release stated that the
markets where it most expected the APU to sell - China and Europe,
had lukewarm reception of "Llano." This caused a fire-sale of AMD
stock, when it saw a fall by almost 25 percent on extremely heavy
trading volume. In the following quarter, on October 28, 2012, AMD
announced a decline in its gross margins for Q3 2012 declined 31
percent QoQ, due in part to the $100 million inventory write-down,
following which AMD stock declined another 17 percent in a flash.

The Plantiff seeks to recover damages, who are represented by Robbins
Geller, a firm that specializes in class action suits against
companies that mislead their investors in a very big way. It would be
interesting to see how this case plays out, given that readers of
content on sites like ours most likely knew how fast AMD's K10 CPU
and VLIW5 GPU architectures were (given that they had each driven
AMD's product stack for several years), and what to expect from
Llano, way back in 2011.

Source:

http://www.techpowerup.com/196941/am...investors.html

Sounds like sour grapes on their part and people who blame others
because things didn't work out, especially considering that no one
forced them to invest. As I recall, venture capitalists who do that
for a living are feeling successful if just one out of three
investments succeed.

I agree completely. That's one of the reasons I've never considered
investing in those kind of ventures, or in start-ups. The way I see it is,
"You pays your money, you takes your chances", or, "Win some, lose some."
Looks like they lost this time. Kinda like life-long smokers suing because
they got lung cancer. Of course, in those cases, you have a stupid justice
system that rewards you for being stupid.
I had a friend who was an upper-level exec with Black and Decker who swears
that years ago there was a regional warning included with their power drills
advising against using it for drilling skull holes to let the bad spirits
out, because someone tried it, caused great damage, and sued over it. I
never saw any proof of it, but I can almost believe it :-)
--
SC Tom

On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:18:59 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
wrote:

Then, the suit has to prove culpable and deceptive intent, wrongdoing
on the part of AMD within a responsible manner for a capitalistic
venture plan to engage its clients through the medium of a prospectus.

Obviously anybody can start up, charter a business for the purpose of
selling ****;- telling them [sh]it will take nicely to finish and
shine out like finely crafted shineola, with full knowledge prior any
such production is both false and misleading, however, is not be the
most responsible way to engage respect in mutually beneficial
partnerships for either shareholders and guiding corporate interests.

In a generally encompassing manner of speaking;- death is the only
certainty anyone, rich or otherwise, can rightly expect to realize.

Standard Disclaimer. I do not own, given the best of my knowledge and
present intent, any holdings of ****(TM). I am an impartial expert to
assure your implied intents are in no way to be infringed upon, that
when you finish reading this, I can safely be said no longer to exist.

The law firm detailing its suit writes:

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's business and
prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants made false
statements and/or concealed adverse facts regarding AMD's 32 nanometer
Llano (the "Llano") Accelerated Processing Unit ("APU"), which is a type
of microprocessor that combines AMD's central processing unit and its
graphics processing unit onto a single piece of silicon, including
repeatedly highlighting the "strong" and "significant" interest in,
demand for, and unit shipments of, the Llano APUs, and falsely and
misleadingly representing that AMD's desktop business was in a "strong
position" and that it would "continue to rebound" in 2012. As a result
of defendants' false statements, AMD stock traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

Larc wrote:

So AMD is getting sued because their crystal ball wasn't working very well? It seems
smart investors would rely on sources in addition to those at the company they are
investing in.

Well, unless a Saudi prince lost money. Then there should be a government bailout...

On 3/4/15 12:35 AM, Larc wrote:
So AMD is getting sued because their crystal ball wasn't working very well?

There is a fine line between an unexpected failure and intentional
fraud....

--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 21) Linux 3.19.3-200.fc21.i686+PAE
^ ^ 17:48:01 up 1 day 2:28 0 users load average: 0.10 0.09 0.06
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On 3/4/15 2:08 AM, Flasherly wrote:
In a generally encompassing manner of speaking;- death is the only
certainty anyone, rich or otherwise, can rightly expect to realize.

I wonder to where the lost stock value of AMD had gone....

--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 21) Linux 3.19.3-200.fc21.i686+PAE
^ ^ 17:48:01 up 1 day 2:28 0 users load average: 0.10 0.09 0.06
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 3/4/15 12:35 AM, Larc wrote:
So AMD is getting sued because their crystal ball wasn't working very
well?

There is a fine line between an unexpected failure and intentional
fraud....


I don't see the intentional fraud here.

If I told you I was making cherry flavored or
chocolate flavored processors, would you
believe they were the next great thing ?
What would your common sense tell you ?
That such a move was purely speculative
and "mostly marketing fluff". The APU is
no different.

Paul