Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(“Robbins Geller”) (
) today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Diodes, Inc. (“Diodes”) (NASDAQ:DIOD) common stock during the period between February 9, 2011 and June 9, 2011 (the “Class Period”).
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel,
Samuel H. Rudman
David A. Rosenfeld
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at
. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Diodes and certain of its officers and/or directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Diodes, together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures and supplies application specific standard products in the discrete, logic and analog semiconductor markets primarily in Asia, North America and Europe.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and future prospects. Specifically, it alleges that defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the Company’s labor problems associated with its backend facility in China were much more severe and prolonged than publicly represented; (b) that the Company’s gross margins were being impacted by higher than expected wages and labor shortages; (c) that the Company was experiencing decreasing demand for its products, especially from its LED TV and notebook customers; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.