throbber
Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`EDITH LISS, derivatively on behalf of
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.:_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`ROBERT H. SWAN, GEORGE S. DAVIS,
`VENKATA S.M. RENDUCHINTALA, DR.
`OMAR ISHRAK, JAMES J. GOETZ,
`ALYSSA HENRY, RISA LAVIZZO-
`MOUREY, TSU-JAE KING LIU, GREGORY
`D. SMITH, ANDREW WILSON AND
`FRANK D. YEARY
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants,
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`
`
`Nominal Defendant.
`
`
`VERIFIED STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT
`Plaintiff Edith Liss, (“Plaintiff”), by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby
`submits this Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint (the “Complaint”) for the benefit of
`nominal defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel” or the “Company”) against the Individual
`Defendants (defined herein) seeking to remedy their breaches of fiduciary duties and other
`violations of law from October 25, 2019 until July 23, 2020 (the “Relevant Period”). Plaintiff
`makes these allegations upon personal knowledge as to those allegations concerning Plaintiff
`and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief based on the investigation of
`undersigned counsel, which includes, without limitation: (a) review and analysis of public filings
`made by Intel with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); (b) review
`and analysis of press releases and other publications disseminated by Intel; (c) review of news
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 2
`
`articles, stockholder communications, and postings on Intel’s website concerning the Company’s
`public statements; (d) pleadings, papers, and any documents filed with and publicly available
`from a related pending consolidated securities fraud class action pending in the Northern District
`of California captioned, In re: Intel Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:20cv5194 (the
`“Securities Class Action”); and (e) review of other publicly available information concerning
`Intel and the Individual Defendants (as defined below).
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a shareholder derivative action asserting claims for breach of fiduciary
`
`duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
`
`(the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against certain officers and
`
`members of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”).
`
`2.
`
`Intel designs and manufactures microprocessors and other semiconductor
`
`components that are used in computers, data centers, communications infrastructure, and
`
`other devices.
`
`3.
`
`New manufacturing processes in the semiconductor industry are measured by
`
`nanometers or “nm”—referring to the size of the transistors on the chips used to make calculations.
`
`The smaller the transistors, the more processing power that can be included in a chip’s finite space.
`
`These technological advancements help companies make semiconductors that have smaller
`
`circuits, which allows the components to count faster, store more information or use less
`
`electricity.
`
`4.
`
`Intel is unique among semiconductor companies because it designs and produces
`
`its products in its own manufacturing facilities. Most of its competitors, including Advanced
`
`Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”), focus on design and rely upon third-party foundries, such as
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (“TSMC”), to manufacture their chips. The ability to
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 3
`
`focus solely on production has helped TSMC improve its manufacturing capabilities faster than
`
`Intel and has given companies such as AMD an opportunity to compete with Intel.
`
`5.
`
`The wrongdoing alleged herein arises from the Individual Defendants’ repeated
`
`misrepresentations to investors regarding Intel’s development and manufacturing of a new,
`
`seven-nanometer chip. Prior to the start of the Relevant Period, Intel repeatedly delayed the
`
`launch of its 10-nanometer chips due to flaws in Intel’s manufacturing process. Those delays
`
`tarnished Intel’s reputation as a premier semiconductor chip maker and allowed the Company’s
`
`competitors to bring more advanced technology to market.
`
`6.
`
`In April 2018, to address Intel’s flawed execution in the development and
`
`production of its 10-nanometer chips, the Company hired Jim Keller (“Keller”), one of the
`
`industry’s most highly respected chip architects, as a Senior Vice President who would revitalize
`
`Intel’s struggling chip-design enterprise.
`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, by the start of the Relevant Period, Intel purported to have
`
`positioned itself to promptly and successfully produce its next generation seven-nanometer
`
`chip, which was scheduled to debut in late 2021. Given Intel’s previous problems with the 10-
`
`nanometer chips, the Individual Defendants knew that the Company’s timely development and
`
`production of the seven-nanometer chip was critically important to Intel and its investors.
`
`8.
`
`Throughout the Relevant Period, the Company repeatedly assured investors that it
`
`was making “good progress” on its seven-nanometer chip and that Intel’s first seven-
`
`nanometer product was “on track” to launch by late 2021. Intel also touted its “in-house
`
`manufacturing as an important advantage” over its competitors. These and similar statements
`
`made throughout the Relevant Period were false. In reality, the Individual Defendants knew, or
`
`recklessly disregarded, that as a result of a material defect in Intel’s manufacturing process, the
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 4
`
`Company could not timely launch its next generation seven-nanometer chip. As a result of
`
`the Company’s defective manufacturing process, the Individual Defendants also knew or
`
`recklessly disregarded that Intel’s strategy of designing and manufacturing its products in-
`
`house did not provide the competitive advantage touted to investors.
`
`9.
`
`The truth began to emerge on June 11, 2020, when Intel announced that Keller
`
`had abruptly resigned for “personal reasons,” effective immediately. Keller’s departure came as a
`
`surprise to many in the industry.
`
`10.
`
`The Company also revealed significant leadership changes within its Technology,
`
`Systems Architecture and Client Group—the group responsible for engineering and
`
`manufacturing Intel’s chips. As a result of these disclosures, the Company’s stock price declined
`
`by $4.17 per share, or 6.5%, from $63.87 per share to $59.70 per share.
`
`11.
`
`Then, on July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel shocked investors when it
`
`revealed that production of its seven-nanometer chips was a full 12 months behind schedule, and
`
`would not be arriving until later 2022 or early 2023. The Company attributed the delay to a
`
`“defect” in Intel’s seven-nanometer manufacturing process. Intel also revealed in an
`
`unprecedented move that, as a result of its production problems, it would use a competitor’s
`
`manufacturing facilities if it could not resolve the delay quickly. These disclosures caused the
`
`price of Intel stock to decline by $9.81 per share, or 16.2%, from $60.40 per share to $50.59 per
`
`share.
`
`12.
`
`On July 27, 2020, Intel announced additional sweeping changes to the
`
`Company’s Technology, Systems Architecture and Client Group. The division will now be split
`
`up into five different teams, divvying up responsibilities in technology development,
`
`manufacturing, design engineering, architecture, and supply chain management, and the leaders
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 5
`
`of each of those groups will report directly to Intel’s CEO. The changes also included the
`
`ousting of the Company’s Chief Engineering Officer, Defendant Venkata S.M. Renduchintala
`
`(“Renduchintala”).
`
`13.
`
`The Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith,
`
`due care, oversight, and candor by knowingly engaging in the deceptions alleged herein.
`
`14.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the Individual Defendants’ breaches of
`
`fiduciary duties, Intel has sustained damages as described below.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`15.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to Section 27
`
`of the 1934 Act because the claims asserted herein arise under Sections 14(a) of the 1934 Act
`
`and Rule 14a-9.
`
`16.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`17.
`
`This derivative action is not a collusive action to confer jurisdiction on a court of
`
`the United States that it would not otherwise have.
`
`18.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants because each
`
`Defendant is an individual who has minimum contacts with this District to justify the exercise of
`
`jurisdiction over them.
`
`19.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1401 because
`
`Intel is incorporated in this District. In addition, the defendants have conducted business in this
`
`District, and the defendants’ actions have had an effect in this District.
`
`20.
`
`Finally, the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Intel includes
`
`an exclusive forum selection clause requiring all derivative actions be brought in “Delaware
`
`Court of Chancery (except that, in the event the Delaware Court of Chancery lacks subject matter
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 6
`
`jurisdiction over any such action or proceeding, then the sole and exclusive forum for such action
`
`or proceeding shall be the federal district court for the District of Delaware).”
`
`PARTIES
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff is a stockholder of Intel, was a stockholder of Intel at the time of the
`
`wrongdoing alleged herein and has been a stockholder of Intel continuously since that time.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant Intel is a global technology company. Incorporated in Delaware, the
`
`Company maintains its corporate headquarters at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara,
`
`California. Intel common stock trades on NASDAQ under ticker symbol “INTC.”
`
`23.
`
`Defendant Robert H. Swan (“Swan”) has served as Intel’s Chief Executive
`
`Officer (“CEO”) and as a director since January 30, 2019. Before being named CEO, Swan was
`
`interim CEO for seven months and was Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), where he oversaw
`
`Intel’s global finance organization, mergers and acquisitions, investor relations, information
`
`technology, and the company’s Corporate Strategy Office. For 2019, Defendant Swan received
`
`an astounding $66,935,100 in total compensation. As discussed herein, at the 2020 annual
`
`meeting held on May 14, 2020, Intel stockholders voted against an advisory vote on Swan’s
`
`executive pay, demonstrating stockholder dissatisfaction on Swan’s executive compensation.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant George S. Davis (“Davis”) has served as Intel’s CFO since April 3,
`
`2019. Davis is also an Executive Vice President. Davis leads Intel’s global finance organization,
`
`including finance, accounting and reporting, tax, treasury, internal audit, and investor relations.
`
`He also oversees Intel’s information technology (IT) organization.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 7
`
`25.
`
`Defendant Renduchintala served as Intel’s Chief Engineering Officer and
`
`President of the Company’s Technology, Systems Architecture and Client Group from April 12,
`
`2017 until August 3, 2020.1
`
`26.
`
`Defendant Dr. Omar Ishrak (“Ishrak”) has served on the Board since March 2017
`
`and has been Chairman of the Board since January 2020.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant James J. Goetz (“Goetz”) has served on the Board since November
`
`2019.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant Alyssa Henry (“Henry”) has served on the Board since January 2020
`
`and on the Audit Committee of the Board since May 2020.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant Risa Lavizzo-Mourey (“Lavizzo-Mourey”) has served on the Board
`
`since March 2018.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant Tsu-Jae King Liu (“Liu”) has served on the Board since July 2016. Liu
`
`serves on the Audit Committee of the Board.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant Gregory D. Smith (“Smith”) has served on the Board since March
`
`2017. Smith serves on the Audit Committee of the Board.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant Andrew Wilson (“Wilson”) has served on the Board since September
`
`2017.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant Frank D. Yeary (“Yeary”) has served on the Board since March 2009
`
`and served on the Audit Committee at all relevant times until he was replaced by Defendant
`
`Henry on the Audit Committee in May 2020.
`
`
`1 In 2018, Intel’s Client and Internet of Things Businesses and System Architecture Group
`evolved into the Technology, Systems Architecture and Client Group.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 8
`
`34.
`
`Defendants Swan, Davis, Renduchintala, Goetz, Henry, Ishrak, Lavizzo-Mourey,
`
`Liu, Smith, Wilson, and Yeary are collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Individual
`
`Defendants.”
`
`35.
`
`The Individual Defendants, because of their positions with Intel, 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. Each of the Individual Defendants was provided with copies of the Company’s
`
`reports, presentations, 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, each of the Individual Defendants knew that the adverse facts specified herein
`
`had not been disclosed to, and were being concealed from, the public, and that the positive
`
`representations which were being made were then materially false and/or misleading.
`
`DUTIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
`
`36.
`
`By reason of their positions as officers and/or directors of the Company and
`
`because of their ability to control the business and corporate affairs of the Company, the
`
`Individual Defendants owed the Company and its stockholders the fiduciary obligations of good
`
`faith, loyalty, and candor and were and are required to use their utmost ability to control and
`
`manage the Company in a fair, just, honest, and equitable manner. The Individual Defendants
`
`were and are required to act in furtherance of the best interests of the Company and its
`
`stockholders so as to benefit all stockholders equally and not in furtherance of their personal
`
`interest or benefit. Each director and officer of the Company owes to the Company and its
`
`stockholders the fiduciary duty to exercise good faith and diligence in the administration of the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 9
`
`affairs of the Company and in the use and preservation of its property and assets, and the highest
`
`obligations of fair dealing.
`
`37.
`
`The Individual Defendants, because of their positions of control and authority as
`
`directors and/or officers of the Company, were able to and did, directly and/or indirectly,
`
`exercise control over the wrongful acts complained of herein.
`
`38.
`
`To discharge their duties, the officers and directors of the Company were required
`
`to exercise reasonable and prudent supervision over the management, policies, practices and
`
`controls of the Company. By virtue of such duties, the officers and directors of Intel were
`
`required to, among other things:
`
`a. ensure that the Company complied with its legal obligations and requirements,
`
`including acting only within the scope of its legal authority and disseminating truthful and
`
`accurate statements to the SEC and the investing public;
`
`b. conduct the affairs of the Company in a lawful, efficient, business-like manner so
`
`as to make it possible to provide the highest quality performance of its business, to avoid wasting
`
`the Company’s assets, and to maximize the value of the Company’s stock;
`
`c. properly and accurately guide investors and analysts as to the true financial
`
`condition of the Company at any given time, including making accurate statements about the
`
`Company’s financial results and prospects, and ensuring that the Company maintained an
`
`adequate system of financial controls such that the Company’s financial reporting would be true
`
`and accurate at all times;
`
`d. remain informed as to how the Company conducted its operations, and, upon
`
`receipt of notice or information of imprudent or unsound conditions or practices, make
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 10
`
`reasonable inquiry in connection therewith, and take steps to correct such conditions or practices
`
`and make such disclosures as necessary to comply with federal and state securities laws; and
`
`e. ensure that the Company was operated in a diligent, honest, and prudent manner
`
`in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations.
`
`39.
`
`Each Individual Defendant, as a director and/or officer, owed to the Company and
`
`its stockholders the fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith and candor in the management and
`
`administration of the affairs of the Company, as well as in the use and preservation of its
`
`property and assets. The conduct of the Individual Defendants complained of herein involves a
`
`knowing and culpable violation of their obligations as directors and officers of the Company, the
`
`absence of good faith on their part, and a conscious disregard for their duties to the Company and
`
`its stockholders that Individual Defendants were aware or should have been aware posed a risk
`
`of serious injury to the Company.
`
`40.
`
`The Company has adopted the Intel Code of Conduct (the “Code”) that applies to
`
`all employees, including officers and members of the Board. The Code states:
`
`Conduct Business with Honesty and Integrity
`
`One of our core values is to conduct business with uncompromising integrity and
`professionalism. We put this value into practice by:
`
`• Communicating clearly, respectfully, and professionally in business,
`
`• Treating customers, suppliers, distributors, and others fairly,
`
`• Acting as a responsible corporate citizen, respecting human rights, and
`managing the impact of our business on the world around us, and
`
`• Keeping accurate financial and other books and records.
`
`Public Communications
`
`***
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 11
`
`As a publicly traded company, Intel must comply with a variety of regulations that
`govern public communications to investors and the public and promote transparency
`in financial markets. Intel has specific requirements for financial reports and
`documents that the company files with or submits to the U.S. Securities and
`Exchange Commission and in other public communications.
`
`Therefore, if you are responsible for preparing such reports or contributing
`information for such reports, you need to ensure that the disclosures are accurate,
`reliable, and complete.
`
`41.
`
`Additionally, during the Relevant Period the purpose of the Audit Committee
`
`comprised of Defendants Smith, Yeary, and Liu (the “Audit Committee Defendants”) was to
`
`“represent and assist the Board of Directors in its general oversight of the company’s accounting
`
`and financial reporting processes, audits of the financial statements, internal control and audit
`
`functions, and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and ethical standards adopted
`
`by the company.”
`
`42.
`
`Per the Audit Committee Charter, the responsibilities of the Audit Committee
`
`Defendants included, among other things:
`
`
`
`
`
`• Obtains and reviews annually a report by the independent auditor
`describing the firm’s internal quality-control procedures; any material
`issues raised by the most recent internal quality-control review, peer
`review, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”)
`inspection, or by any inquiry or investigation by governmental or
`professional authorities, within the preceding five years, respecting
`one or more independent audits carried out by the firm, and any steps
`taken to deal with any such issues.
`
`• Reviews and discusses with the independent auditor: (a) its audit
`plans, and audit procedures, including the scope, fees and timing of the
`audit; (b)
`the results of
`the annual audit examination and
`accompanying management letters; (c) all critical audit matters
`(CAMs) proposed by the independent auditor to be included in the
`independent auditor’s annual audit report, and (d) the results of the
`independent auditor’s procedures with respect to interim periods.
`
`• Reviews and discusses reports from the independent auditor on (a) all
`critical accounting policies and practices used by the company, (b)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`alternative accounting treatments within GAAP related to material
`items that have been discussed with management, including the
`ramifications of the use of the alternative treatments and the treatment
`preferred by the independent auditor, and (c) other material written
`communications between the independent auditor and management.
`
`• Reviews and discusses with the independent auditor the independent
`auditor’s judgments as to the quality, not just the acceptability, of the
`company’s accounting principles and such further matters as the
`independent auditors present the Committee under generally accepted
`auditing standards, and all communications that the independent
`auditor is required to give to the committee.
`
`• Discusses with management and the independent auditor quarterly
`earnings press releases, including the interim financial information and
`Business Outlook included therein, any “pro forma” or non-GAAP
`financial measures set forth in the company’s quarterly earnings press
`releases, quarterly financial statements and presentations relating
`thereto, and reviews the year-end audited financial statements and
`“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
`Results of Operations” and recommends to the Board of Directors
`whether the audited financial statements should be included in the
`Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year.
`
`• Reviews and discusses with management and the independent auditor
`various topics and events that may have significant financial impact on
`the company or
`that are
`the subject of discussions between
`management and the independent auditors.
`
`• Reviews and discusses with management the company’s major
`financial, product security, and cybersecurity risk exposures and the
`steps management has taken to monitor and control such exposures.
`
`• Reviews and discusses with management, the independent auditor, and
`the company’s chief audit executive (CAE): (a) the adequacy and
`effectiveness of the company’s internal controls (including any
`significant deficiencies or material weaknesses) and significant
`changes in internal controls reported to the Committee by the
`independent auditor or management; (b) the company’s internal audit
`procedures; and (c) the adequacy and effectiveness of the company’s
`controls and procedures, and management reports thereon.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 13
`
`• Reviews annually with the CAE the scope and the results of the
`internal audit program, and reviews annually the performance of both
`the internal audit group and the independent auditor in executing their
`plans and meeting their objectives. The Committee periodically
`reviews and discusses with the CAE audit findings, any problems or
`difficulties the internal auditors may have encountered during the
`course of their audits, including any restrictions on the scope of
`activities or access to required information and any significant changes
`required in the originally planned audit program. The Committee will
`review any significant issues raised in reports to management by the
`internal audit team.
`
`• Establishes procedures for the receipt, retention and treatment of
`complaints received by the company regarding accounting, internal
`accounting controls, or auditing matters, and
`the confidential,
`anonymous submission by employees of concerns
`regarding
`questionable accounting or auditing matters.
`
`
`
`
`
`43. With regard to risk oversight, the annual proxy statement filed by the Company
`
`on March 31, 2020 (“2020 Proxy”) states: “One of the Board’s important functions is oversight
`
`of risk management at Intel. Risk is inherent in business, and the Board’s oversight, assessment,
`
`and decisions regarding risks occur in the context of and in conjunction with the other activities
`
`of the Board and its committees.”
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`44.
`
`Based in Santa Clara, California, Intel designs and manufactures microprocessors
`
`and other semiconductor components that are used in computers, data centers, communications
`
`infrastructure, and other devices.
`
`45.
`
`There are two main parts to Intel's business: the designing of computer chips and
`
`the manufacturing of computer chips. Most of the Company’s rivals only do one or the other. For
`
`instance, TSMC simply manufactures chips designed by other companies, such as AMD and
`
`Apple.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 14
`
`46.
`
`One of the Company’s key marketable industry-leading features was that it was
`
`ahead of its competitors in manufacturing technology, however, in recent years Intel has been
`
`unable to develop new leading manufacturing technologies on its original timescales.
`
`47.
`
`Prior to the Relevant Period, Intel delayed the launch of its 10-nanometer
`
`chips by more than two years, as a result of flaws in the Company’s manufacturing process.
`
`Rivals AMD and Nvidia, which relied on outsourced chip manufacturing that continued to
`
`improve, leapfrogged ahead of the Company. These delays damaged Intel’s reputation and
`
`allowed the Company’s competitors to capture market share from Intel by bringing more
`
`advanced technology to market.
`
`48.
`
`To address the Company’s manufacturing issues, Intel hired Keller, one of the
`
`industry’s most respected chip designers, in April 2018 to revitalize its struggling chip-design
`
`enterprise.
`
`49. When Intel announced
`
`the hiring of Keller
`
`in April 2018, Defendant
`
`Renduchintala said Keller was expected to “help accelerate” the transformation in how Intel
`
`designs chips, stating “Jim is one of the most respected microarchitecture design visionaries in
`
`the industry, and the latest example of top technical talent to join Intel.”
`
`50.
`
`Given Intel’s significant missteps in manufacturing its 10-nanometer chip, the
`
`Individual Defendants knew that the Company’s ability to successfully produce its next
`
`generation seven-nanometer chip on time was of critical importance to investors. A failure by
`
`Intel to timely produce its seven-nanometer chip would undoubtedly erode public confidence in
`
`Intel’s ability to deliver high-performance and high-efficiency computing products. Accordingly,
`
`Intel repeatedly assured investors that it would deliver its seven-nanometer technology by late
`
`2021.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 15
`
`THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ MATERIALLY FALSE AND MISLEADING
`STATEMENTS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD
`
`51.
`
`The Relevant Period begins on October 25, 2019, the first trading day after Intel
`
`
`
`held its third quarter 2019 earnings call. During the call, which began after the market closed on
`
`October 24, 2019, Defendant Swan stated that Intel was “accelerating the pace of process node
`
`introductions and moving back to a 2-to 2.5-year cadence” on its chip development and that the
`
`Company’s “process technology and design engineering teams are working closely to ease
`
`process design complexity and balance schedule, performance, power and cost,” assuring
`
`investors that “[w]e are on track to launch our first 7-nanometer-based product . . . in 2021, 2
`
`years after the launch of 10-nanometer.” Defendant Swan also represented to investors that Intel
`
`could achieve production of its seven-nanometer chip more quickly and efficiently than its 10-
`
`nanometer chip because “there’s less complexity” in the design rules.
`
`52.
`
`On December 3, 2019, Defendant Swan, representing Intel, presented at the
`
`Credit Suisse Technology, Media and Telecom Conference. During the conference, an analyst
`
`questioned why Intel was so confident in getting back to a 2 to 2.5 year cadence in developing
`
`and producing its seven-nanometer chip, despite the challenges and delays the Company faced
`
`with its 10-nanometer chip. In response, Defendant Swan stated that Intel had “learn[ed] from
`
`the past” and emphasized that “we didn’t start [on seven-nanometer] yesterday. We started it
`
`several years ago and we monitor performance on density, on functionality” and “we feel pretty
`
`good about getting to a 2, 2.5-year cadence and launching our first 7-nanometer product in the
`
`fourth quarter of 2021.”
`
`53.
`
`On December 10, 2019, Defendant Renduchintala represented Intel during a
`
`presentation at the UBS Global TMT Conference. During the conference, an analyst asked that
`
`“[g]iven the issues that you’ve had on 10, which have been quite public, can you talk about what
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 16 of 33 PageID #: 16
`
`you learned that might give us more confidence on 7?” In response, Defendant Renduchintala
`
`stated that the Company had “learned a number of really, really crucial lessons” from the
`
`challenges it faced in the development and production of its 10-nanometer technology.
`
`Defendant Renduchintala also emphasized that those lessons “have been integrated into our
`
`approach on 7” and assured investors that “we’re making good progress on 7 as a result of that”
`
`and “we’ll see our first 7-nanometer product shipping in 2021 with a full portfolio in 2022.”
`
`54.
`
`On January 23, 2020, Intel held its fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2019 earnings
`
`call. During the call, Defendant Swan stated that “[o]ur process technology execution continues
`
`to improve” and reassured investors that “[o]ur 7-nanometer process remains on track to deliver
`
`our lead 7-nanometer product, Ponte Vecchio, at the end of 2021.”
`
`55.
`
`The next day, on January 24, 2020, Intel filed with the SEC its annual report on
`
`Form 10-K for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2019. The Form 10-K was signed by
`
`Defendants Swan, Davis, Goetz, Henry, Ishrak, Lavizzo-Mourey, Liu, Smith, Wilson, and Yeary
`
`and contained certifications by Defendants Swan and Davis that attested to the purported
`
`accuracy and completeness of the Form 10-K. In the 10-K, the Company emphasized that, unlike
`
`many other semiconductor companies, Intel manufactures its products in its own manufacturing
`
`facilities and touted its “in-house manufacturing as an important advantage” over its competitors.
`
`The 10-K also stated that “[o]ur ability to optimize and apply our manufacturing expertise to
`
`deliver more advanced, differentiated products is foundational to our current and future success.”
`
`In addition, the 10-K reassured investors that “[w]e are on track to deliver our first 7nm-based
`
`product . . . at the end of 2021” and “[w]e are approaching next-generation process nodes with a
`
`focus on striking an optimal balance between schedule, performance, power, and cost and will
`
`continue to drive intra-node advancement.”
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01635-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 17 of 33 PageID #: 17
`
`56.
`
`The Company’s 10-K acknowledged that most of Intel’s competitors rely on third-
`
`party foundries, such as TSMC, to manufacture their semiconductor components and
`
`products, and represented that Intel faced purported risks with regard to its timely
`
`introduction of new manufacturing
`
`technologies with sufficient manufacturing yields.
`
`Specifically, the 10-K stated that “to
`
`the extent we do not
`
`timely
`
`introduce new
`
`manufacturing process
`
`technologies
`
`that
`
`improve
`
`transistor density with sufficient
`
`manufacturing yields and operational efficiency, rela

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket