Case Page

 

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

Filing Date: December 06, 2001

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 4, 2008, on December 6, 2001, a class action complaint for violations of U.S. federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, four officers individually and the three investment banking firms who served as representatives of the underwriters in connection with the Company’s initial public offering of common stock. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the Company’s initial public offering did not disclose that (1) the underwriters solicited and received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors, and (2) the underwriters had agreed to allocate shares of the offering in exchange for a commitment from the customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined higher prices. The Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount and is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. A court order dated October 9, 2002 dismissed without prejudice the four officers of the Company who had been named individually. On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit vacated a decision by the District Court granting class certification in six “focus” cases, which are intended to serve as test cases. The plaintiffs selected these six cases, which do not include the Company. The Court has indicated that its decisions in the six focus cases are intended to provide strong guidance for the parties in the remaining cases. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied a petition for rehearing filed by plaintiffs, but noted that plaintiffs could ask the District Court to certify more narrow classes than those that were rejected. On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six focus cases. On September 27, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class in the six focus cases. On November 14, 2007, the issuers and the underwriters named as defendants in the six focus cases filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints against them. On March 26, 2008, the District Court dismissed the Securities Act claims of those members of the putative classes in the focus cases who sold their securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and those who purchased outside the previously certified class period. With respect to all other claims, the motions to dismiss were denied. On October 10, 2008, at the request of plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was withdrawn, without prejudice.

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. On or about March 23, 2000, Silicon Labs commenced an initial public offering of 3,200,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $31 per share (the "Silicon Labs IPO"). In connection therewith, Silicon Labs filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus (the "Prospectus"), with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Silicon Labs shares issued in connection with the Silicon Labs IPO; and (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate Silicon Labs shares to those customers in the Silicon Labs IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Silicon Labs shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SLAB
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-11218
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 12/06/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/23/2000
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 Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  4. Sirota & Sirota LLP
    110 Wall Street 21st Floor, Sirota & Sirota LLP, NY 10005
    888.759.2990 212.425.9093 · Info@SirotaLaw.com
  5. 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
  6. 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
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-11218
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 04/19/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/24/2000
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 Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  4. Sirota & Sirota LLP
    110 Wall Street 21st Floor, Sirota & Sirota LLP, NY 10005
    888.759.2990 212.425.9093 · Info@SirotaLaw.com
  5. 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
  6. 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