 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
ZiLOG, Inc. Summary: According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2000, the matter was fully briefed and argued to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 8, 2000. On October 18, 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed a Memorandum decision affirming the District Court's decision to grant our Motion To Dismiss and affirming the judgment in favor of all defendants.
As previously reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 4, 1999, on March 24, 1999, the district court granted ZiLOG's motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of all defendants. On April 16, 1999, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The original Complaint charged that defendants, Zilog and certain of its officers and directors, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5) by, among other things, issuing false misleading statements regarding the merger agreement, Zilog's financial condition, as well as its present and future business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on or around July 21, 1997, Zilog signed a definitive merger agreement with the Texas Pacific Group. Under the terms of the agreement, the owner of each outstanding share of Zilog common stock could elect to receive $25.00 in cash. On November 20, 1997 Zilog shocked the market by announcing that the merger agreement had been renegotiated and that the owner of each outstanding share of Zilog common stock now could expect to receive only $20.00 in cash.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3674
Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | ZiLOG, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | ZLG [DELISTED] |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.zilog.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Lawrence, et al. v. ZiLOG, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| Lawrence, et al. v. ZiLOG, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top