Case Page


Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 04/12/1999 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 26, 1998

On April 9, 1999, U.S. District Judge Fern M. Smith granted both plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement and motion for approval of the plan of allocation. Attorneys’ fees and reimbursement expenses, with interest, were awarded and paid to Plaintiffs' Settlement Counsel from the Settlement Fund. According to the Form 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 1999, under the terms of the agreement, the claims were settled for $3,000,000.

The complaint charges DSPC and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Prior to and during the Class Period, the Company portrayed itself as the largest independent vendor of baseband chipsets to OEMs in the Japanese digital cellular telephone market. The complaint alleges that the defendants learned that order rates for its B-series chipsets had materially declined and DSPC's backlog of orders had shrunk by $10 million and that the declining order rate was largely due to the decision of the Company's OEM customers to redesign their current models of PDC phones which would require development and delivery of DSPC's next generation "D-series" PDC chipsets. This was a devastating development to DSPC because as the complaint alleges, the defendants knew that DSPC would not, given design and development delays and foundry ramp-up lead times, deliver commercial quantities of its new D-series chipsets until after the end of second quarter 1997 (June 30, 1997).


Sector: Services
Industry: Broadcasting & Cable TV
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: DSP
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data

"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 98-CV-0765
JUDGE: Hon. Fern M. Smith
DATE FILED: 02/26/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/16/1997
  1. Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2500, Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco), CA 94105
    415.538.3725 ·
  2. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Westfield, NJ)
    220 St. Paul Street, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Westfield, NJ), NJ 07090
    908.928.1700 908.301.9008 ·
  3. Chitwood & Harley LLP
    1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Chitwood & Harley LLP, GA 30309
    888.873.3999 404.873.4476 ·
  4. Kaufman, Miller, Dickstein & Grunspan

  5. Kenneth A. Elan (former NY)
    217 Broadway Suite 404, Kenneth A. Elan (former NY), NY 10007
    212.619.0260 ·
  6. Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman (former)
    320 Walnut Street, 6th Floor , Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman (former), PA 19106
    215.592.1500 ·
  7. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 ·
  8. Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C.

    800.993.3233 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date