Motorola, Inc. Summary: The original complaint charges Motorola and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Motorola builds, markets and sells products, services and applications that make connections to people, information and entertainment through broadband, embedded systems and wireless networks.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that in the summer of 2006, Motorola's poor financial performance had depressed its stock price to below $19 per share. In order to artificially inflate the price of Motorola stock, defendants began a series of false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, defendants repeatedly told investors to expect strong growth in sales and revenues. On October 17, 2006, defendants announced that Motorola had failed to meet its revenue and sales projections. As a result of this announcement, Motorola's stock price declined over 7% in two trading days. Then on January 4, 2007, defendants announced that Motorola's fourth quarter 2006 results also failed to meet expectations. This time, the Company's stock price declined almost 8%.
On October 16, 2007, the Court issued the Order signed by U.S. District Judge James B. Moran consolidating the actions and appointing the Macomb County Employees’ Retirement System as Lead Plaintiff and approving their selection of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Miller Law LLC as Lead and Liaison Counsel, respectively. On December 20, 2007, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed. The defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss on February 5, 2008.
On September 23, 2008, U.S. District Judge James B. Moran issued the Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing Count I as to two individual defendants and denied the remainder of the defendants' motion to dismiss. The parties soon after engaged in discovery proceedings. On February 27, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class. On August 25, 2009, that motion was granted.
On March 15, 2010, the plaintiffs were granted leave to file redacted second amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a (Redacted) Second Amended Complaint that day. On November 17, 2010, one of the individual defendants was voluntarily dismissed from the action. On March 14, 2011, a Stipulation of Dismissal of All Claims against two individual defendants. On March 25, 2011, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied on July 25, 2011.
On February 02, 2012, a Stipulation of Settlement was filed by the court outlining the understanding of the parties in conjunction with the resolution of the case.
On February 15, 2012, an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice was signed by the judge in this case.
On May 09, 2012, a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice; an Order Approving Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds; and an Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Reimbursement of Plaintiffs' Expenses were issued by the Court thereby dismissing this case with prejudice.
SIC Code: 3663
Industry: Communications Equipment
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