WELCOME TO THE 2019 APPLE SECURITIES SETTLEMENT WEBSITE

This website has been established to provide general information related to the proposed settlement of the case known as In re Apple Inc. Securities Litigation, (the “Action”), No. 4:19-cv-02033-YGR, pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court"). The capitalized terms used on this website, and not otherwise defined, shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement dated May 21, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), which can be found and downloaded by clicking on the Case Documents tab above. Your rights may be affected by the Settlement if, from November 2, 2018 through January 2, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”), you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Apple Inc. (“Apple” or the “Company”) common stock or call options on Apple common stock or sold put options on Apple common stock (“Apple Securities”).

The entities that lead the Action, Norfolk County Council as Administering Authority of the Norfolk Pension Fund, are referred to as the “Lead Plaintiff”. The entities and individuals, Apple Inc., Timothy D. Cook, and Luca Maestri, that are being sued are collectively referred to as the “Defendants.”

The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Lead Counsel”) represent the Class Members. Class Members will not be charged for these lawyers. They will be paid from the Settlement Fund to the extent the Court approves their application for fees and expenses.

WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT?

On April 16, 2019, the first complaint in this action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under the caption City of Roseville Employees’ Retirement System v. Apple Inc., No. 4:19-cv-02033. On August 14, 2019, the Court appointed the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island (“Rhode Island”) as lead plaintiff. On October 15, 2019, Rhode Island filed a Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws. On December 16, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint. On June 2, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and ordering the transition of lead plaintiff from Rhode Island to Norfolk. On June 19, 2020, the Court issued an order appointing Norfolk as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) as lead counsel. On June 23, 2020, Norfolk filed its Revised Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”). The Complaint alleged, inter alia, that on November 1, 2018, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions about demand for the newly-released iPhone and Apple’s business in China, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint further alleged that the false and misleading statements and omissions caused Apple stock to trade at artificially inflated prices and that, when the true facts were disclosed, Apple’s stock price declined.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on July 13, 2020. Norfolk opposed the motion on July 27, 2020. On November 4, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

On May 5, 2021, Norfolk filed its motion for class certification. On February 4, 2022, the Court issued an Order granting the motion in part, certifying a Class of purchasers or acquirers of Apple common stock, and denying (without prejudice) the motion with respect to the proposed class of Apple options investors. The Court appointed Norfolk as the Class Representative, and Robbins Geller as Class Counsel. On April 15, 2022, Norfolk filed a supplemental motion seeking certification of a class of options investors. On March 28, 2023, the Court issued an Order Modifying Class, which granted Norfolk’s motion to certify call option buyers and put option sellers as part of the Class. 

On September 9, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. On September 9, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed an Omnibus Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Defendants’ Proposed Experts. On June 26, 2023, the Court issued an Order Denying Summary Judgment. On July 17, 2023, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Exclude and granting in part and denying in part Lead Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude. 

On February 27, 2024, the Court issued an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order setting deadlines for the parties to exchange and submit witness lists, motions in limine, proposed jury instructions, and other pretrial materials, as well as setting a trial date of September 9, 2024.

In late 2021, the Parties first engaged the services of the Hon. Layn R. Phillips (Ret.), a nationally recognized mediator, to facilitate settlement negotiations. On January 31, 2022, the Parties attended a mediation session with Judge Phillips held remotely via videoconference. The January 31, 2022 mediation session was preceded by the submission of voluminous mediation statements including exhibits. The mediation did not result in a settlement.

On May 25, 2022, the Parties attended a second mediation session with Judge Phillips, this time in person. The May 25, 2022 mediation was also preceded by the submission of supplemental mediation statements with additional exhibits and excerpts of deposition testimony by each of the Parties. Again, the Parties did not reach an agreement at that mediation and litigation continued.

Following the May 25, 2022 mediation and concurrent with the ongoing litigation, Judge Phillips continued to correspond with the Parties to explore the potential for resolution of the case. On January 10, 2024, the Parties engaged in another in-person mediation session with Judge Phillips, but again the Parties were unable to reach a settlement. On February 14, 2024, Judge Phillips issued a mediator’s proposal to resolve all claims alleged in the Complaint and on March 1, 2024, the Parties accepted the mediator’s proposal. The agreement to accept the mediator’s proposal included, among other things, the Settling Parties’ agreement to settle and release all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the Action in return for a cash payment of $490,000,000 to be paid by Apple and/or its insurers on behalf of Defendants, for the benefit of the Class, subject to the negotiation of the terms of a Stipulation of Settlement and approval by the Court. The Stipulation (together with the Exhibits thereto) reflects the final and binding agreement between the Settling Parties.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

The Settlement provides that, in exchange for the release of the Released Claims (defined in the Stipulation) and dismissal of the Action, Defendants have agreed to pay (or cause to be paid) $490 million in cash to be distributed after taxes, tax expenses, notice and claims administration expenses, and approved fees and expenses to Class Members who send in a valid Proof of Claim form pursuant to the Court-approved Plan of Allocation.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

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 (the “Notice”) and Stipulation, 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.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES