Case Page

 

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

Filing Date: July 25, 2001

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For The Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2006, the Company has accepted a settlement proposal presented to all issuer defendants. Under the settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the Microtune defendants. The insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuer defendants in all of the IPO cases will guarantee plaintiffs a recovery of $1 billion, an amount that covers all of the IPO cases. Under this guarantee, the insurers will pay the difference, if any, between $1 billion and the amount collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in all of the IPO cases. The Microtune defendants will not be required to pay any money in the settlement. However, any payment made by the insurers will be charged to the respective insurance policies covering each issuer’s case on a pro rata basis (that is, the total insurance company payments will be divided by the number of cases that settle). If the pro rata charge exceeds the amount of insurance coverage for an issuer, that issuer would be responsible for additional payments. The proposal also provides that the insurers will pay for the company’s legal fees going forward. The settlement will require final approval of the Court, which cannot be assured. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order providing preliminary approval of the settlement except to the extent the settlement would have cut off contractual indemnification claims that underwriters may have against securities issuers, such as Microtune. On September 1, 2005, the Court finalized its preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing to consider final approval of the settlement was held on April 24, 2006 and the Court has not determined at this time whether to approve the settlement.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, starting on July 11, 2001, multiple purported securities fraud class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company is aware of at least three such complaints. The complaints are brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company’s common stock from August 4, 2000 through December 6, 2000 and are related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation (IPO cases). The complaints were consolidated and amended on May 29, 2002. The amended complaint alleges liability under §§ 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (1933 Act Claims) and §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (1934 Act Claims), on the grounds that the registration statement for Company’s initial public offering did not disclose that (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain of their customers to purchase shares in the offering in exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters, and (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain of their customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued. No specific amount of damages is claimed. The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in other lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Those cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin. On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court denied the motions to dismiss the 1933 Act Claims. The Court did not dismiss the 1934 Act Claims against the Company and other issuers and underwriters.

The complaint alleges violations of 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) defendants had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Microtune shares issued in connection with the Microtune IPO; and (ii) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby defendants agreed to allocate Microtune shares to those customers in the Microtune IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Microtune 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: TUNE
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-06823
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 07/25/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/04/2000
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. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  3. Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
    11 Broadway, Suite 400, Klayman & Toskes, P.A. , NY 10004
    888/997-9956 561/361-9178 · stoskes@nasd-law.com
  4. 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 ·
  5. 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-06823
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 05/29/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/04/2000
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