Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/06/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 05, 2001

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, in June 2003, upon the determination of a special independent committee of the Company’s Board of Directors, the Company elected to participate in a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants. The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the litigation against those defendants is continuing. The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the class action cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by the participating issuer defendants. If recoveries totaling less than $1 billion are obtained by the class members from the underwriter defendants, the class members will be entitled to recover the difference between $1 billion and the aggregate amount of those recoveries from the participating issuer defendants. If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied. In addition, the Company and any other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to the class members certain claims that the Company may have against the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offerings. On September 1, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and directed that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to class members. Thereafter, the Court held a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006, at which objections to the proposed settlement were heard. After the fairness hearing, the Court took under advisement whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.


As summarized by the same SEC filing, during the period July 5, 2001 through July 27, 2001, the Company was named as a defendant in three shareholder class action lawsuits that were filed in federal court in New York City against the Company and certain of its former officers, current and former directors and the underwriters for its initial public offering. On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated amended complaint that supersedes the individual complaints originally filed. Management understands that various other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class action cases against approximately 300 other publicly-traded companies and their public offering underwriters in New York City, which have all been transferred, along with the case against the Company, to a single federal district judge for purposes of coordinated case management. On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated, amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants. The underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims against them. In addition, the parties have stipulated to the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Company’s individual former officers and current and former directors who were named as defendants in the Company’s litigation, and they are no longer parties to the litigation. On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants. In that ruling the Court granted in part and denied in part those motions. As to the claims brought against the Company under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the Court dismissed all of these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow plaintiffs the opportunity to re-plead these claims. As to the claims brought under the registration provisions of the securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims as to the Company and as to substantially all of the other issuer defendants as well. The Court also denied the underwriter defendants’ motion to dismiss in all respects.

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. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) Morgan Stanley, Lehman, Robertson Stephens and Smith Barney had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Morgan Stanley, Lehman, Robertson Stephens and Smith Barney allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of ON Semiconductor shares issued in connection with the ON Semiconductor IPO; and (ii) Morgan Stanley, Lehman, Robertson Stephens and Smith Barney had entered into agreements with customers whereby Morgan Stanley, Lehman, Robertson Stephens and Smith Barney agreed to allocate ON Semiconductor shares to those customers in the ON Semiconductor IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional ON Semiconductor shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. As alleged in the complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public offerings.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ONNN
Company Market: NASDAQ
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-06114
JUDGE: Hon. Lawrence M. McKenna
DATE FILED: 07/05/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/27/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Beatie & Osborne LLP
    599 Lexington Avenue, 42nd Floor, Beatie & Osborne LLP, NY 10022
    212.888.9000 212.888.9664 ·
  2. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  3. Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL)
    One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL), FL 33431
    561.750.3000 561.750.3364 ·
  4. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  5. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  6. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  7. Seeger Weiss LLP (New York)
    One William Street, Seeger Weiss LLP (New York), NY 10004
    212.584.0700 · info@seegerweiss.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-06114
JUDGE: Hon. Lawrence M. McKenna
DATE FILED: 04/19/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/27/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  5. Sirota & Sirota LLP
    110 Wall Street 21st Floor, Sirota & Sirota LLP, NY 10005
    888.759.2990 212.425.9093 · Info@SirotaLaw.com
  6. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
  7. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date