For those who want to read the entire text, here's the complaint:
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/media/cases/260_Complaint.pdf
That is exactly what I wanted to see, thanks! After reading it, I can see how the lawsuit makes a lot of sense, e.g., see paragraph 23 that says: [oops, looks like they disabled copy/paste]
Pretty much it describes all kinds of examples that do not fall under future predictions or what would happen. So, I am still really confused how the tech blog analysis got it so wrong, like they were being way too kind to AMD in interpreting the actual complaint.
Or, maybe because the complaint disabled copy/pasting, the tech blog simply had its hands tied heheh too hard to actually re-type all those pesky words...
But one example is how the complaint starts off with the light stuff, like at para. 37 where AMD said demand was higher than anticipated. I could see AMD coming back with saying they just had super-low anticipation or something, but that flies in the face of actual statements/marketing materials or whatever. Still, it's the kind of statements where you could argue they were specifically crafted to give one impression, but really can be interpreted in other ways. Like, consider para. 38, where they said the issues with Global Foundry impacted ability to "fulfill customer demand". Hah that's just really sneaky, because you read that and think "Oh wow AMD has all this demand" when really they were just misleading you because the issue was that even if demand is nearly zero, if you are having issues with the supply, that will impact your ability to fulfill that near zero demand. Sneaky.
Or in para. 39 saying how issues causing revenue shortfall were largely in their control. Well, again sneaky language where they could control it directly into the ground if they wanted to make it worse, so that's technically true they could control the worsening of it, but when you read the statement you automatically think oh sure, they could control it in a way that makes it better right? WRong.
So it seems all that is slick clever double-speak from marketing lawyers. But then you get to the juicy parts down in para 43 and onward (into paragraphs 50-, etc), where Read and Seifert open their mouths and words come out that do not seem to have the ability to be interpreted in multiple ways. I just don't have familiarity with the SEC rules to know where they crossed the line, but seems like legit grounds to bring the suit.
Also para 98 does a nice job of explaining how these false statement issues differ from the forward-looking statements that would otherwise provide safe-harbor, which I think the tech blog cited by OP would have picked up on and avoided paraphrasing in such a pro-AMD friendly way.