Rubicon Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation Settlement
HomeCase DocumentsContact UsFile Claim

Welcome to the Rubicon Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation Settlement Website

This website has been established to provide general information regarding the proposed Settlement of the action entitled Firerock Global Opportunity Fund LP v. Rubicon Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03813, pending in the United States District Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Action"). The capitalized terms used on this website and not defined herein shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement dated January 15, 2016, which can be found and downloaded by clicking on the Case Documents tab above. Your rights may be affected by the Settlement if you purchased Rubicon Technology, Inc. ("Rubicon" or the "Company") common stock pursuant to the Company’s public offering on or about March 19, 2014.

This litigation began on April 30, 2015, when a class action complaint was filed alleging violations by Defendants of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On July 15, 2015, the Court appointed Firerock Global Opportunity Fund LP as Lead Plaintiff and the law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP as Lead Counsel.

On July 31, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (“Amended Complaint”) that generally alleges, among other things, that the Registration Statement, which became effective 12 days before the end of the first quarter of 2014, failed to disclose material information necessary to make the statements made not misleading and failed to disclose material trends, events, and uncertainties that were known to management and were reasonably expected to have a material impact on the Company’s income from continuing operations, as required by Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K. In particular, Lead Plaintiff further alleges that the Registration Statement, by incorporating SEC filings that reflected trends of shrinking losses and costs, failed to disclose that these trends had reversed during the first quarter of 2014. Lead Plaintiff further alleges that the Registration Statement failed to disclose significant development costs and risks associated with Rubicon’s new and highly touted “PSS” product and also failed to disclose that the Company was selling certain products at or below cost, which would result in a material inventory write-off. Finally, Lead Plaintiff alleges that the “risk factors” in the Registration Statement regarding costs, inventory write-offs, and the PSS product were false and misleading because they only warned of what might occur if certain contingencies were met; they did not make clear that such contingencies had, in fact, already manifested. Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions artificially inflated the price of Rubicon common stock and when the truth was eventually disclosed, resulted in substantial damages to the Class.

Defendants deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by Lead Plaintiff in the litigation. Defendants contend that they did not make any false or misleading statement, that they disclosed all information required to be disclosed by the federal securities laws, and that any omitted or misstated information was not material. Defendants also contend that any losses suffered by members of the Class were not caused by any false or misleading statements by Defendants and/or were caused by intervening events.

Defendants anticipated filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On August 28, 2015, however, the Settling Parties requested a stay of the motion to dismiss briefing schedule to allow the Settling Parties sufficient time to pursue mediation, which the Court granted on August 31, 2015. The Settling Parties participated in a full-day mediation session, as well as numerous follow up communications, with well-respected mediator Hunter R. Hughes, Esq., who has extensive experience mediating complex class action cases such as this Action. The mediation included the exchange of mediation statements prepared by Lead Plaintiff and Defendants. These mediation statements detailed the parties’ respective arguments concerning liability and damages. Leading up to and during the mediation, the parties had substantial communications with the mediator and with each other regarding their respective views of the merits of the Action. The Settling Parties did not reach an agreement at the end of the mediation. After additional communications between Mr. Hughes and the Settling Parties, the Settling Parties ultimately agreed to an agreement-in-principle to settle the Action based upon a Mediator’s Proposal issued by Mr. Hughes. After further negotiations, the Settling Parties agreed to the Settlement Agreement.

The principal reason for the Settlement is the benefit to be provided to the Class now. This benefit must be compared to the risk that no recovery might be achieved after continued litigation, including Defendants’ anticipated motion(s) to dismiss, summary judgment motion(s) after the completion of discovery, a contested trial, and likely appeals, possibly years into the future. The two sides vigorously disagree on both liability and the amount of money that could have been won if Lead Plaintiff prevailed at trial. Defendants expressly deny all of the claims and allegations of wrongdoing or liability made against them arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts, or omissions alleged in the Complaint. Defendants also maintain that they have meritorious defenses and deny that Lead Plaintiff and the Class have suffered any harm or losses attributable to Defendants’ actions. In comparison, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel believe that the $2.5 million Settlement represents a substantial benefit to the Class and is preferable to the risks of continued litigation and the possibility of a smaller, or no recovery at some future date years into the future after continued litigation, including a trial and appeals.

Although the information in this website is intended to assist you, it does not replace the information contained in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and Settlement Agreement, both of which can be found and downloaded by clicking on the Case Documents tab above. We recommend that you read the Notice and other relevant case documents carefully.


SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM The only way to get a payment. Proofs of Claim must be postmarked or submitted online on or before May 17, 2016.
EXCLUDE YOURSELF Get no payment. This is the only option that allows you to ever be part of any other lawsuit against the Defendants about the legal claims in this case. Exclusions must be postmarked on or before April 18, 2016.
OBJECT Write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement. Objections must be received by the Court and counsel on or before April 18, 2016.
GO TO A HEARING Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement. Requests to speak must be received by the Court and counsel on or before April 18, 2016.
DO NOTHING Get no payment. Give up your rights.


Submit a Claim Form: May 17, 2016
Request Exclusion: April 18, 2016
File an Objection: April 18, 2016
Court Hearing on Fairness of Settlement: May 20, 2016