July 28, 2015 - The court held a final settlement hearing and approved the settlement, entered the orders approving the plan of allocation, the motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses, and dismissing the action with prejudice.
May 6, 2015 - The court preliminarily approved the settlement.

April 17, 2015 - Parties filed a stipulation of settlement.

December 29, 2011 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the judgement of the U.S. District Court and remanded the case.

November 15, 2010 - The lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

October 14, 2010 - The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss.

March 17, 2008 - Another defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

March 14, 2008 - Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

November 21, 2007 - The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint.

October 11, 2007 - Lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed and all cases were consolidated.

March 13, 2007 - Lead plaintiff motions were filed.

January 12, 2007 - An investor in shares of Celestica Inc (NYSE: CLS) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Celestica Inc in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between July 27, 2006 and December 12, 2006.

The complaint charges Celestica Inc and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Celestica Inc provides electronic manufacturing services to original equipment manufacturers in the computing, telecommunications, aerospace and defense, automotive, consumer electronics, and industrial sectors in Asia, the Americas, and Europe.

The complaint alleges that between July 27, 2006 and December 12, 2006, defendants issued numerous statements describing Celestica Inc’s financial performance and future prospects, which they attributed, in part, to success of Celestica Inc’s restructuring activities and improvements in the Mexican and European operations. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading when made because defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that Celestica Inc was experiencing declining demand in its Mexican operations and that division was carrying significant amounts of unneeded inventory which would have to be written off; (ii) that Celestica Inc was experiencing declining demand in its Information Technology (”IT”) and communications market segments as its larger customers scaled back purchases; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable basis to project adjusted earnings per share ranging from $0.12 to $0.20. When this undisclosed information later became public, shares of Celestica Inc common stock declined.