Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`POMERANTZ LLP
`Jennifer Pafiti (SBN 282790)
`1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90024
`Telephone: (310) 405-7190
`Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`JAMES E. THORSEN, Individually and on
`Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, ROBERT H. SWAN,
`GEORGE S. DAVIS,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`Plaintiff James E. Thorsen (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`by and through Plaintiff’s attorneys, alleges the following upon information and belief, except as to those
`
`allegations concerning Plaintiff, which are alleged upon personal knowledge. Plaintiff’s information and
`
`belief is based upon, among other things, Plaintiff’s counsel’s investigation, which includes, without
`
`limitation: (a) review and analysis of regulatory filings made by Intel Corporation (“Intel” or the
`
`“Company”) with the United States (“U.S.”) Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); (b) review
`
`and analysis of press releases and media reports issued by and disseminated by Intel; and (c) review of
`
`other publicly available information concerning Intel.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION AND OVERVIEW
`
`1.
`
`This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
`
`Intel securities between April 23, 2020, and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to
`
`pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).
`
`2.
`
`Intel is a technology company that provides computing, networking, data storage, and
`
`communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group,
`
`Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group, Client Computing Group, and
`
`All Other segments.
`
`3.
`
`According to Intel, its 7-nanometer CPU technology is the next generation following
`
`Intel’s 10-nanometer technology. Intel claims that 7-nanometer technology offers double the area
`
`efficiency of 10-nanometer products, and will offer 20% higher performance per watt. In May 2019,
`
`Intel projected to ship its first 7-nanometer products in 2021.
`
`4.
`
`On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed production delays for its 7-
`
`nanometer products after the Company had “identified a defect mode in [its] seven-nanometer process
`
`that resulted in yield degradation.”
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`5.
`
`On this news, Intel’s share price fell $9.81 per share, or approximately 16%, to close at
`
`$50.59 per share on July 24, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.
`
`6.
`
`Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
`
`statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations,
`
`and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that Intel had identified a defect
`
`mode in its 7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation; (ii) that, as a result, the Company
`
`would experience a six-month delay in its production schedule for 7-nanometer products; (iii) that Intel
`
`was reasonably likely to rely on third-party foundries for manufacturing its 7-nanometer products; (iv)
`
`that, as a result of the foregoing, Intel was reasonably likely to lose market share to its competitors who
`
`are already selling 7-nanometer products; and (v) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive
`
`statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or
`
`lacked a reasonable basis.
`
`7.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
`
`market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
`
`losses and damages.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`The claims asserted herein arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15
`
`U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-
`
`5).
`
`9.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1331 and Section 27 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78aa).
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and Section 27
`
`of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78aa(c)). Substantial acts in furtherance of the alleged fraud or the
`
`effects of the fraud have occurred in this Judicial District. Many of the acts charged herein, including the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`dissemination of materially false and/or misleading information, occurred in substantial part in this
`
`Judicial District. In addition, the Company’s principal executive offices are located in this District.
`
`11.
`
`In connection with the acts, transactions, and conduct alleged herein, Defendants directly
`
`and indirectly used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including the U.S. mail,
`
`interstate telephone communications, and the facilities of a national securities exchange.
`
`PARTIES
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff, as set forth in the accompanying Certification, incorporated by reference herein,
`
`purchased Intel securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal
`
`securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions alleged herein.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant Intel is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal executive
`
`offices located in Santa Clara, California. Intel’s common stock trades on the NASDAQ exchange under
`
`the symbol “INTC.”
`
`14.
`
`Defendant Robert H. Swan (“Swan”) was the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the
`
`Company at all relevant times.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant George S. Davis (“Davis”) was the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) of the
`
`Company at all relevant times.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants Swan and Davis (collectively the “Individual Defendants”), because of their
`
`positions with the Company, possessed the power and authority to control the contents of the Company’s
`
`reports to the SEC, press releases and presentations to securities analysts, money and portfolio managers
`
`and institutional investors, i.e., the market. The Individual Defendants were provided with copies of the
`
`Company’s reports and press releases alleged herein to be misleading prior to, or shortly after, their
`
`issuance and had the ability and opportunity to prevent their issuance or cause them to be corrected.
`
`Because of their positions and access to material non-public information available to them, the Individual
`
`Defendants knew that the adverse facts specified herein had not been disclosed to, and were being
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`concealed from, the public, and that the positive representations which were being made were then
`
`materially false and/or misleading. The Individual Defendants are liable for the false statements pleaded
`
`herein.
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`
`Background
`
`Intel is a technology company that provides computing, networking, data storage, and
`
`17.
`
`communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group,
`
`Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group, Client Computing Group, and
`
`All Other segments.
`
`18.
`
`According to Intel, its 7-nanometer CPU technology is the next generation following
`
`Intel’s 10-nanometer technology. Intel claims that 7-nanometer technology offers double the area
`
`efficiency of 10-nanometer products, and will offer 20% higher performance per watt. In May 2019,
`
`Intel projected to ship its first 7-nanometer products in 2021.
`
`Materially False and Misleading Statements Issued During the Class Period
`
`19.
`
`The Class Period begins on April 23, 2020. On that day, Intel announced its first quarter
`
`2020 financial results in a press release that stated, in relevant part:
`
` First-quarter revenue was $19.8 billion, up 23% year-over-year (YoY). Datacentric
`revenue* grew 34 percent and PC-centric revenue grew 14 percent YoY.
`
` First-quarter GAAP earnings-per-share (EPS) was $1.31, up 51 percent YoY; non-
`GAAP EPS of $1.45 was up 63 percent.
`
` Generated $6.2 billion cash from operations and $2.9 billion of free cash flow while
`strengthening liquidity with $10.3 billion in new debt and suspension of share
`buybacks.
`
`
`
`
`
` Expecting second-quarter revenue of $18.5 billion; GAAP EPS of $1.04 and non-
`GAAP EPS of $1.10; not providing full-year guidance given significant economic
`uncertainty.
`
`On April 24, 2020, Intel filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the
`
`20.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`4
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`period ended March 28, 2020, affirming the previously reported financial results. The report incorporated
`
`by reference the risk factors stated in the 2019 annual report filed with the SEC on January 24, 2020.
`
`Specifically, Intel stated, in relevant part:
`
`We face significant competition . . . . Our products primarily compete based on
`performance, energy efficiency, integration, ease-of-use, innovative design, features, price,
`quality, reliability, security, software ecosystem and developer support, time-to-market,
`reliable product roadmap execution, brand recognition, customer support and
`customization, and availability. The importance of these factors varies by product—for
`example, performance is a key competitive factor for data center platform products, and
`failure to introduce new products with performance advantages can harm our competitive
`position and market segment share in our DCG business. For our memory products, price,
`density, and non-volatility are among the most important competitive factors. We will not
`realize our strategic goal to become the leading end-to-end provider for the new data
`world if our products do not meet our customers’ requirements across these factors in
`an increasingly competitive landscape.
`
`
`* * *
`
`Most of our competitors rely on third-party foundries, such as Taiwan Semiconductor
`Manufacturing Company, Ltd. or Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and subcontractors for
`manufacture and assembly and test of their semiconductor components and products. As
`an IDM, we have higher capital expenditures and R&D spending than many of our
`“fabless” competitors. We also face new sources of competition as a result of changes in
`industry participants through, for example, acquisitions or business collaborations, as well
`as new entrants, including in China, which could have a significant impact on our
`competitive position.
`
`
`* * *
`
`To compete successfully, we must maintain a successful R&D effort, develop new
`products and production processes, and improve our existing products and processes, all
`ahead of competitors. We are focusing our R&D efforts across six engineering pillars:
`process technology, architecture, memory, interconnect, security, and software. These
`include ambitious initiatives, such as our unified oneAPI portfolio of developer tools, and
`we cannot guarantee that all of these efforts will deliver the benefits we anticipate. For
`example, to the extent we do not timely introduce new manufacturing process
`technologies that improve transistor density with sufficient manufacturing yields and
`operational efficiency, relative to competing foundry processes, we can face cost and
`product performance disadvantages. Similarly, to the extent our R&D efforts do not
`timely produce semiconductor designs for our platform products with improvements in
`areas like performance, performance per watt, die utilization, and core counts, and with
`new features such as optimizations for AI and other workloads, our competitive position
`can be harmed.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 7 of 19
`
`* * *
`
`If we are not able to compete effectively, our financial results will be adversely affected,
`including reduced revenue and gross margin, and we may be required to accelerate the
`write-down of the value of certain assets.
`
`21.
`
`The same report also stated, with respect to development of new products:
`
`Our efforts to innovate involve significant expense and carry inherent risks, including
`difficulties in designing and developing next-generation process technologies, and
`investments in manufacturing assets and facilities that are made years in advance of the
`process node introduction. We cannot guarantee that we will realize the expected benefits
`of next-generation process technologies, including the expected cost and density
`advantages, or that we will achieve an adequate return on our capital investments,
`particularly as development of new nodes has grown increasingly expensive.
`
`Risks inherent in the development of next-generation process technologies include
`production
`timing delays,
`lower-than-anticipated manufacturing yields,
`longer
`manufacturing throughput times, and product defects and errata. Production timing
`delays have at times caused us to miss customer product design windows, which can result
`in lost revenue opportunities and damage to our customer relationships. Furthermore, when
`the introduction of next-generation process nodes is delayed, including additional
`competitive features in our products can result in larger die size products, manufacturing
`supply constraints, and increased product costs. Lower manufacturing yields and longer
`manufacturing throughput times, compared to previous process nodes, can increase our
`product costs and adversely affect our gross margins, and can contribute to manufacturing
`supply constraints. In addition, as the die size of our products has increased and our
`manufacturing process nodes have shrunk, our products and manufacturing processes have
`grown increasingly complex and more susceptible to product defects and errata, which can
`also contribute to production timing delays and lower yields.
`
`
`* * *
`
`Production issues periodically lead to increased costs and affect our ability to meet product
`demand, which can adversely impact our business and the results of operations. In
`addition, to the extent we face delays in the timing of our product introductions, we could
`become less competitive and lose revenue opportunities, and our gross margin could be
`adversely affected because we incur significant costs up front in the product development
`stage and earn revenue to offset these costs over time.
`
`22.
`
`The above statements identified in ¶¶ 19-21 were materially false and/or misleading, and
`
`failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects.
`
`Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that Intel had identified a defect mode in its 7-
`
`nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation; (ii) that, as a result, the Company would experience
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`6
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`a six-month delay in its production schedule for 7-nanometer products; (iii) that Intel was reasonably
`
`likely to rely on third-party foundries for manufacturing its 7- nanometer products; (iv) that, as a result
`
`of the foregoing, Intel was reasonably likely to lose market share to its competitors who are already selling
`
`7-nanometer products; and (v) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about
`
`the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
`
`basis.
`
`The Truth Emerges
`
`On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel reported its second quarter 2020 financial
`
`23.
`
`results in a press release. Therein, the Company disclosed production delays for its 7-nanometer products.
`
`Specifically, the press release stated, in relevant part:
`
`The company's 7nm-based CPU product timing is shifting approximately six months
`relative to prior expectations. The primary driver is the yield of Intel's 7nm process, which
`based on recent data, is now trending approximately twelve months behind the company’s
`internal target.
`
`24.
`
`During a conference call held the same day, Defendant Swan stated that the Company was
`
`considering outsourcing production to a third-party foundry:
`
`We are seeing an approximate six-month shift in our seven-nanometer-based CPU product
`timing relative to prior expectations. The primary driver is the yield of our seven-
`nanometer process, which, based on recent data, is now trending approximately 12 months
`behind our internal target. We have identified a defect mode in our seven-nanometer
`process that resulted in yield degradation. We've root caused the issue and believe there
`are no fundamental roadblocks.
`
`But we have also invested in contingency plans to hedge against further schedule
`uncertainty. We're mitigating the impact of the process delay on our product schedules by
`leveraging improvements in design methodology such as die disaggregation and advanced
`packaging . . . . We will continue to invest in our future process technology road map, but
`we will be pragmatic and objective in deploying the process technology that delivers the
`most predictability and performance for our customers, whether that be on our process,
`external foundry process, or a combination of both.
`
`25.
`
`On this news, Intel’s share price fell $9.81 per share, or approximately 16%, to close at
`
`$50.59 per share on July 24, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a class, consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
`
`acquired Intel securities during the Class Period, and who were damaged thereby (the “Class”). Excluded
`
`from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members
`
`of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in
`
`which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
`
`27.
`
`The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
`
`Throughout the Class Period, Intel’s common shares actively traded on the NASDAQ. While the exact
`
`number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained through
`
`appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are at least hundreds or thousands of members in the
`
`proposed Class. Millions of Intel common stock were traded publicly during the Class Period on the
`
`NASDAQ. Record owners and other members of the Class may be identified from records maintained
`
`by Intel or its transfer agent and may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, using the form
`
`of notice similar to that customarily used in securities class actions.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as all members of
`
`the Class are similarly affected by Defendants’ wrongful conduct in violation of federal law that is
`
`complained of herein.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class and
`
`has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation.
`
`30.
`
`Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and predominate
`
`over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law and
`
`fact common to the Class are:
`
`(a)
`
`whether the federal securities laws were violated by Defendants’ acts as alleged
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`herein;
`
`(b)
`
`whether statements made by Defendants to the investing public during the Class
`
`Period omitted and/or misrepresented material facts about the business, operations, and prospects of Intel;
`
`and
`
`(c)
`
`to what extent the members of the Class have sustained damages and the proper
`
`measure of damages.
`
`31.
`
`A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore, as the
`
`damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of
`
`individual litigation makes it impossible for members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs
`
`done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
`
`UNDISCLOSED ADVERSE FACTS
`
`32.
`
`The market for Intel’s securities was open, well-developed and efficient at all relevant
`
`times. As a result of these materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failures to disclose,
`
`Intel’s securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Plaintiff and other members
`
`of the Class purchased or otherwise acquired Intel’s securities relying upon the integrity of the market
`
`price of the Company’s securities and market information relating to Intel, and have been damaged
`
`thereby.
`
`33.
`
`During the Class Period, Defendants materially misled the investing public, thereby
`
`inflating the price of Intel’s securities, by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements and/or
`
`omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make Defendants’ statements, as set forth herein, not false
`
`and/or misleading. The statements and omissions were materially false and/or misleading because they
`
`failed to disclose material adverse information and/or misrepresented the truth about Intel’s business,
`
`operations, and prospects as alleged herein.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`34.
`
`At all relevant times, the material misrepresentations and omissions particularized in this
`
`Complaint directly or proximately caused or were a substantial contributing cause of the damages
`
`sustained by Plaintiff and other members of the Class. As described herein, during the Class Period,
`
`Defendants made or caused to be made a series of materially false and/or misleading statements about
`
`Intel’s financial well-being and prospects. These material misstatements and/or omissions had the cause
`
`and effect of creating in the market an unrealistically positive assessment of the Company and its financial
`
`well-being and prospects, thus causing the Company’s securities to be overvalued and artificially inflated
`
`at all relevant times. Defendants’ materially false and/or misleading statements during the Class Period
`
`resulted in Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchasing the Company’s securities at artificially
`
`inflated prices, thus causing the damages complained of herein when the truth was revealed.
`
`35.
`
`Defendants’ wrongful conduct, as alleged herein, directly and proximately caused the
`
`LOSS CAUSATION
`
`economic loss suffered by Plaintiff and the Class.
`
`36.
`
`During the Class Period, Plaintiff and the Class purchased Intel’s securities at artificially
`
`inflated prices and were damaged thereby. The price of the Company’s securities significantly declined
`
`when the misrepresentations made to the market, and/or the information alleged herein to have been
`
`concealed from the market, and/or the effects thereof, were revealed, causing investors’ losses.
`
`SCIENTER ALLEGATIONS
`
`37.
`
`As alleged herein, Defendants acted with scienter since Defendants knew that the public
`
`documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name of the Company were materially false
`
`and/or misleading; knew that such statements or documents would be issued or disseminated to the
`
`investing public; and knowingly and substantially participated or acquiesced in the issuance or
`
`dissemination of such statements or documents as primary violations of the federal securities laws. As
`
`set forth elsewhere herein in detail, the Individual Defendants, by virtue of their receipt of information
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`reflecting the true facts regarding Intel, their control over, and/or receipt and/or modification of Intel’s
`
`allegedly materially misleading misstatements and/or their associations with the Company which made
`
`them privy to confidential proprietary information concerning Intel, participated in the fraudulent scheme
`
`alleged herein.
`
`APPLICABILITY OF PRESUMPTION OF RELIANCE
`
`(FRAUD-ON-THE-MARKET DOCTRINE)
`
`38.
`
`The market for Intel’s securities was open, well-developed and efficient at all relevant
`
`times. As a result of the materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to disclose, Intel’s
`
`securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On June 5, 2020, the Company’s
`
`share price closed at a Class Period high of $64.34 per share. Plaintiff and other members of the Class
`
`purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities relying upon the integrity of the market price
`
`of Intel’s securities and market information relating to Intel, and have been damaged thereby.
`
`39.
`
`During the Class Period, the artificial inflation of Intel’s shares was caused by the material
`
`misrepresentations and/or omissions particularized in this Complaint causing the damages sustained by
`
`Plaintiff and other members of the Class. As described herein, during the Class Period, Defendants made
`
`or caused to be made a series of materially false and/or misleading statements about Intel’s business,
`
`prospects, and operations. These material misstatements and/or omissions created an unrealistically
`
`positive assessment of Intel and its business, operations, and prospects, thus causing the price of the
`
`Company’s securities to be artificially inflated at all relevant times, and when disclosed, negatively
`
`affected the value of the Company shares. Defendants’ materially false and/or misleading statements
`
`during the Class Period resulted in Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchasing the Company’s
`
`securities at such artificially inflated prices, and each of them has been damaged as a result.
`
`40.
`
`At all relevant times, the market for Intel’s securities was an efficient market for the
`
`following reasons, among others:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`Intel shares met the requirements for listing, and were listed and actively traded on
`
`the NASDAQ, a highly efficient and automated market;
`
`(b)
`
`As a regulated issuer, Intel filed periodic public reports with the SEC and/or the
`
`NASDAQ;
`
`(c)
`
`Intel regularly communicated with public investors via established market
`
`communication mechanisms, including through regular dissemination of press releases on the national
`
`circuits of major newswire services and through other wide-ranging public disclosures, such as
`
`communications with the financial press and other similar reporting services; and/or
`
`(d)
`
`Intel was followed by securities analysts employed by brokerage firms who wrote
`
`reports about the Company, and these reports were distributed to the sales force and certain customers of
`
`their respective brokerage firms. Each of these reports was publicly available and entered the public
`
`marketplace.
`
`41.
`
`As a result of the foregoing, the market for Intel’s securities promptly digested current
`
`information regarding Intel from all publicly available sources and reflected such information in Intel’s
`
`share price. Under these circumstances, all purchasers of Intel’s securities during the Class Period
`
`suffered similar injury through their purchase of Intel’s securities at artificially inflated prices and a
`
`presumption of reliance applies.
`
`42.
`
`A Class-wide presumption of reliance is also appropriate in this action under the Supreme
`
`Court’s holding in Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972), because the
`
`Class’s claims are, in large part, grounded on Defendants’ material misstatements and/or omissions.
`
`Because this action involves Defendants’ failure to disclose material adverse information regarding the
`
`Company’s business operations and financial prospects—information that Defendants were obligated to
`
`disclose—positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to recovery. All that is necessary is that the facts
`
`withheld be material in the sense that a reasonable investor might have considered them important in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`12
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05549-BLF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`making investment decisions. Given the importance of the Class Period material misstatements and
`
`omissions set forth above, that requirement is satisfied here.
`
`NO SAFE HARBOR
`
`43.
`
`The statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements under certain
`
`circumstances does not apply to any of the allegedly false statements pleaded in this Complaint. The
`
`statements alleged to be false and misleading herein all relate to then-existing facts and conditions. In
`
`addition, to the extent certain of the statements alleged to be false may be characterized as forward
`
`looking, they were not identified as “forward-looking statements” when made and there were no
`
`meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ
`
`materially from those in the purportedly forward-looking statements. In the alternative, to the extent that
`
`the statutory safe harbor is determined to apply to any forward-looking statements pleaded herein,
`
`Defendants are liable for those false forward-looking statements because at the time each of those
`
`forward-looking statements was made, the speaker had actual knowledge that the forward-looking
`
`statement was materially false or misleading, and/or the forward-looking statement was authorized or
`
`approved by an executive officer of Intel who knew that the statement was false when made.
`
`FIRST CLAIM
`Violation of Section 10(b) of The Exchange Act and
`Rule 10b-5 Promulgated Thereunder
`Against All Defendants
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`45.
`
`During the Class Pe