Syntax-Brillian 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

Syntax-Brillian Corporation Summary: According to a law firm press release, the complaint charges that Syntax-Brillian, its CEO and (now former) CFO misled shareholders through false statements about the company's business prospects, operations, demand for the company's products, and adequacy of internal controls.

Defendant Syntax-Brillian Corporation is a designer, developer and distributor of high definition televisions (HDTVs) in liquid crystal display (LCD) and liquid crystal silicon (LCoS) formats. The Company's HDTVs operate under the brand name Olevia. In November 2006, Syntax acquired Vivitar Corporation. In the past two years, 2006-2007, it has reported explosive growth due largely to reportedly increased sales to a Chinese distributor South China House of Technology. The complaint alleges that throughout 2007, up to late August, the Company and defendants issued a series of increasingly bullish statements about the Company's sales and revenues and prospects and also selling stock on two occasions in the midst of the bullish revenue and profit guidance statements. Plaintiffs allege that Syntax stock price was buoyed by these statements in the $6-$7 range allowing Syntax to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of stock. On September 13, 2007, after disclosure of previously concealed omitted facts, including a failure of adequate accounting systems and an approximately 35% shortfall in previously anticipated revenues, the price of Syntax stock fell over 30% causing loss and damage to all purchasers of Syntax stock on the open market.

According to the docket, Syntax-Brillian filed a notice of Bankruptcy with the court on July 8, 2008. As a result, the class action was stayed against Defendant Syntax-Brillian with an order of dismissal planned for September 15, 2008 unless the bankruptcy court judge lifts the stay prior to the dismissal date.

Plaintiffs filed the first Amended Consolidated Complaint on August 25, 2008 dropping the company as a defendant and adding certain officers and the former Chairman of the Audit Committee to the defendant list. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on October 15, 2008.

In January 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion and the an amended motion to certify the class. On February 4, 2009, Judge Frederick J. Martone issued the order granting in part and denying in part certain of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. The case entered into the discovery phase. On July 17, 2009, Judge Frederick J. Martone granted the plaintiff’s amended motion to certify the class.

On September 8 and 17, 2009, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Before any ruling on the motions, on November 3, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. According to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, the Underwriter Defendants shall pay or cause to be paid the sum of $2,750,000 in cash, the Individual Defendants shall cause Syntax's directors and officers insurance carriers to pay the sum of $4,750,000 in cash, and Grobstein, Horwath & Company LLP shall pay or cause to be paid the sum of $2,500,000 in cash. On November 9, 2009, Judge Frederick J Martone preliminarily approved the settlement. The Settlement Hearing is scheduled for February 12, 2010.

On January 11, 2010, an objection was filed to the proposed class action settlement, but on February 18, 2010, Judge Frederick J. Martone approved the settlement as set forth in the Stipulation and dismissed the action with prejudice. Judge Martone also signed the orders approving the plan of allocation and awarding attorneys’ fees and expense. According to the Order, the Court awards Lead Counsel attorneys' fees of 25% of the Settlement Fund and expenses in an aggregate amount of $1,086,705.67, together with the interest earned thereon for the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3663
Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Syntax-Brillian Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	BRLC
COMPANY WEBSITE:	www.syntaxbrillian.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Teimuraz Tsirekidze, et al. v. Syntax-Brillian Corporation, et al.

COURT: D. Arizona	DOCKET NUMBER: 07-CV-02204
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Frederick J. Martone
DATE FILED: 11/15/2007	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/01/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 09/13/2007
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix) 2901 North Central Avenue - Suite 1000, Phoenix, AZ, 85012 (voice) 602.274.1100, (fax) 602.274.1199, Gardy & Notis, LLP 440 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 07632 (voice) 201-567-7377, (fax) 201-567-7337, info@gardylaw.com Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106 (voice) 800.797.5499, (fax) 860.493.6290, sn06106@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 Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212-223-3900, (fax) 212-371-5969, inquiry@zsz.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 5

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/14/2007
Order Consolidating
Type: Order of Consolidation		Date on the document: 06/04/2008
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/04/2008

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Teimuraz Tsirekidze, et al. v. Syntax-Brillian Corporation, et al.

COURT: D. Arizona	DOCKET NUMBER: 07-CV-02204
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Frederick J Martone
DATE FILED: 08/25/2008	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/09/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/14/2007
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Los Angeles) 9601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510, Los Angeles, CA, 90210 (voice) 310.859.3100, (fax) 310.278.2148, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/25/2008
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/24/2009
Stipulation of Settlement
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 11/03/2009
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement And Providing For Notice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/09/2009
Final Judgment And Order of Dismissal With Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/18/2010
Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees And Expenses
Type: Order Approving AF&E		Date on the document: 02/18/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/18/2010

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: The Nagel Family Trust, et al. v. Syntax-Brillian Corporation, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 12/04/2007
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Bloomfield, Inc., et al. v. Syntax-Brillian Corporation, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/05/2008
Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: TECO Electric & Machinery Co., Ltd., et al. v. Syntax-Brillian Corporation, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/13/2008

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

�