On July 10, 2011, SemiLEDs issued a press release announcing its financial results for its 2011 third quarter ended May 31, 2011. For the quarter, the Company reported revenue of $5.6 million, down 43% from the previous year’s third quarter, and a net loss of $5.1 million, or $0.19 per diluted common share. The Company’s results for the quarter were adversely impacted by a $1.1 million inventory charge during the quarter, an amount equal to more than 7% of the value of the Company’s total inventory at February 28, 2011. In reaction to this news, SemiLEDs’ stock price fell nearly 11%, or $0.71 per share, to close at $5.87 per share on July 12, 2011.Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of SemiLEDs common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. The firm has obtained many of the largest recoveries and has been ranked number one in the number of shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI’s Top SCAS 50 every year since 2003. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com for more information.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/semileds/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of SemiLEDs Corporation (“SemiLEDs” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq:LEDS) common stock during the period between December 9, 2010 and July 12, 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 or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at email@example.com. 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 http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/semileds/. 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 SemiLEDs and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. SemiLEDs is a holding company for its wholly-and majority-owned subsidiaries and joint ventures that collectively develop, manufacture and sell high performance light emitting diode (“LED”) chips and components that are used primarily in general lighting applications, including street lights and commercial, industrial and residential lighting. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s operations and business. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the Company was experiencing known, but undisclosed, pricing pressures for its products which were reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on SemiLEDs’ future revenues and operating income; (ii) that known events or uncertainties, including the reduction in demand for the Company’s products, the likely (and ultimate) loss of a large customer, and the decline in the value of the Company’s inventory, were reasonably likely to cause SemiLED’s financial information not to be indicative of future operating results; (iii) that the Company’s disclosure controls were materially deficient and its representations concerning them were materially false and misleading; (iv) that the certifications issued by defendants associated with the Company’s disclosure controls were materially false and misleading; and (v) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, and its then current business and future financial prospects.