Lawsuit Overview
May 21, 2021 - An amended consolidated complaint was filed.
December 10, 2020 - An investor in shares of Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (OTC: SMICY) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between April 23, 2020 and September 26, 2020.
China based Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, an investment holding company, engages in the computer-aided design, manufacture, testing, packaging, and trading of integrated circuits (IC) and other semiconductor services. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation reported that its annual Total Revenue declined from over 3.35 billion in 2018 to over 3.11 billion in 2019, and that its EBIT increased from 135.46 million in 2018 to 245.73 million in 2019.
On September 7, 2020, after market hours, it was reported that “The Trump administration is considering whether to add China’s top chipmaker SMIC to a trade blacklist, a Defense Department official said[.]”
On September 26, 2020, it was reported that “The United States has imposed restrictions on exports to China’s biggest chip maker SMIC after concluding there is an ‘unacceptable risk’ equipment supplied to it could be used for military purposes.” Shares of Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (OTC: SMICY) declined from $26.65 per share on July 6, 2020 to as low as $11.29 per share on September 30, 2020.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (OTC: SMICY) common shares between April 23, 2020 and September 26, 2020, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between April 23, 2020 and September 26, 2020, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that there was an “unacceptable risk” that equipment supplied to SMIC would be used for military purposes, that SMIC was foreseeably at risk of facing U.S. restrictions, that as a result of restrictions by the U.S. Department of Commerce, certain of SMIC’s suppliers would need “difficult-to-obtain” individual export licenses, and that as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.