Lattice Semiconductor Corporation - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

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

Lattice Semiconductor Corporation Conclusion: According to an article dated October 31, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted approval of a request for attorneys' fees equal to 25% of a $3.5 million settlement, finding that it was reasonable. The district court denied the attorneys' request to recover expenses in the amount of $100,000. Lattice Semiconductor Corp. entered into an agreement with shareholders to settle a securities fraud class action for $3.5 million.

On November 6, 2006, the Court granted the motion for settlement. That day, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice signed by U.S. District Judge Ann L. Aiken.

According to a press release dated March 16, 2006, Lattice Semiconductor Corporation announced that it has reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle the consolidated class action lawsuit filed in 2004 against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. The agreement does not contain any admission of fault or wrongdoing on the part of Lattice or any of the individual defendants in the litigation. The agreement in principle contemplates that plaintiffs will receive a payment of $3,500,000 in exchange for a release of the Company and the individual defendants from all claims asserted in the litigation. Lattice expects that the entire amount of the settlement will be paid by its insurer under the terms of its director and officer liability insurance policy, and that payment of the settlement amount will not affect Lattice's current or future financial results. The agreement in principle is subject to the negotiation and completion of the usual and customary documentation for such a settlement, including a Stipulation of Settlement, and is subject to and conditioned upon final court approval.

On January 13, 2004, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to appoint lead plaintiff. On January 27, 2005, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed. The defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On January 3, 2006, the Court entered the Order denying the motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

The original complaint alleges that Defendants Lattice and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in knowing or reckless disregard of the truth and/or as part of their ongoing efforts to continue the illusion of Lattice's growth in the semiconductor industry, Defendants issued and or participated in the issuance of materially false and misleading statements and financial information. More specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period Defendants: 1) materially understated its accounts payable balance; 2) overstated earnings by a material amount; 3) falsely represented that the Company's financial results during the Class Period had complied with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ('GAAP').

Beginning on January 22, 2004, Lattice began to issue press releases indicating that it had potentially overstated its deferred income account. Shares began to tumble in reaction to the news, falling from $12.36 on January 22, 2004 to close at $11.73 the following day. Shares traded as low as $10 the following week. Then on March 18, 2004, Lattice issued a press release indicating that it anticipated restating its first, second and third quarters of its 2003 financial statements as it had likely overstated the Company's Deferred Income Account, an account that represents the Company's judgment as to the potential gross margin on inventory held by the Company's distributors. On March 24, 2004, Lattice finally released its financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2003. The restatement reduced 2003 revenue by approximately 7% over the nine-month period and increased the Company's net loss by an additional $9 million. In its March 24, 2004 press release the Company attributed the restatement to 'inappropriate accounting entries made, by an individual in the Company's finance department and deficiencies in the design and operation of internal accounting controls related to the deferred income account.' Shares of Lattice continued to sink, falling to $8.95 on April 19, 2004 when it finally amended its Form 10-Q, representing a decline of approximately 27.5% since the overstatement was first announced.

NOTE: Lattice Semiconductor Corporation designs, develops and markets programmable logic devices (PLDs) and related software. PLDs are semiconductor components that can be configured by end customers as specific logic circuits and thus enable shorter design cycle times and reduced development costs. The Company also offers programmable analog and mixed signal products, such as ispPAC products. Lattice's end customers are primarily original equipment manufacturers in the communications, computing, industrial, automotive, medical, consumer and military end markets.

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

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Lattice Semiconductor Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	LSCC
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.latticesemi.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Autumn Partners, LLC, et al. v. Lattice Semiconductor Corporation, et al.

COURT: D. Oregon	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-01255
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Dennis J. Hubel
DATE FILED: 09/02/2004	SOURCE: Complaint
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/22/2003	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/19/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA) One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109 (voice) 617.542.8300, (fax) 617.230.0903, info@bermanesq.com Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 212.907.0700, (fax) 212.818.0477, info@glrslaw.com Paskowitz & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY, 10165 (voice) 212.685.0969, (fax) 212.685.2306, classattorney@aol.com Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC 35 East State Street, Media, PA, 19063 (voice) 877.891.9880, (fax) , jshah@classactioncounsel.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Securities Fraud Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 09/02/2004

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Lattice Semiconductor Corporation Securities Litigation

COURT: D. Oregon	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-01255
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Dennis J. Hubel
DATE FILED: 01/27/2005	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/22/2003	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/19/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco) 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111 (voice) 415.288.4545, (fax) 415.288.4534, info@lerachlaw.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 206.749.5544, (fax) 206.749.9978, info@lerachlaw.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Seattle) 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2260 , Seattle, WA, 98101 (voice) 206-749-5544, (fax) (206) 749-9978, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/27/2005
Notice Of Pendency And Proposed Settlement Of Class Action
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 08/02/2006
Proof of Claim and Release
Type: Other		Date on the document: 08/02/2006
Final Judgment And Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/06/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/09/2007

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

�