Company and Case Information

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors


Register


_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School


Silicon Image, Inc.
Conclusion: Other actions have been filed making similar allegations regarding the IPOs of more than 300 other companies. All of these have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-92.

According to a Press Release dated December 7, 2001, the complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about October 5, 1999, Silicon Image commenced an initial public offering of 3,900,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $12 per share (the "Silicon Image IPO"). In connection therewith, Silicon Image filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus (the "Prospectus"), with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Silicon Image shares issued in connection with the Silicon Image IPO; and (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate Silicon Image shares to those customers in the Silicon Image IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Silicon Image shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3674
Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Silicon Image, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: SIMG
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.siimage.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Alberto Jose Gonzales, et al., v. Silicon Image, Inc., et al.
 COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-10903
 JUDGE NAME: The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin
 DATE FILED: 12/04/2001  SOURCE: Business Wires
 CLASS PERIOD START: 10/05/1999  CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY)
      10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016
       (voice) 800.217.1522, (fax) , info@bernlieb.com
  • Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
      One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065
       (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) ,
  • Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
      3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
       (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com
  • Sirota & Sirota LLP
      110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005
       (voice) 888.759.2990, (fax) 212.425.9093, Info@SirotaLaw.com
  • Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
      6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017
       (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com
  • Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
      270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016
       (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  6

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Type:  Date on the document: 

    REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    In Re Silicon Image, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation
     COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-10903
     JUDGE NAME: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
     DATE FILED: 04/19/2002  SOURCE: Business Wires
     CLASS PERIOD START: 10/05/1999  CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
     TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
     PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY)
      10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016
       (voice) 800.217.1522, (fax) , info@bernlieb.com
  • Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
      One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065
       (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) ,
  • Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
      3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
       (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com
  • Sirota & Sirota LLP
      110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005
       (voice) 888.759.2990, (fax) 212.425.9093, Info@SirotaLaw.com
  • Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
      6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017
       (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com
  • Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
      270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016
       (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  6

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 04/19/2002
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 06/25/2007

     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