Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 04/18/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: November 04, 2004

According to the Final Order and Judgment signed by U.S. District Saundra B. Armstrong on April 18, 2006, the court certifies this action as a class action and the Settlement is approved as fair, reasonable and adequate. The Complaints are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Further, the Plan of Allocation is approved as fair and reasonable, and Plaintiffs’ Counsel are hereby awarded 25% of the Settlement Shares, in the amount of 612,500 shares, as and for their attorneys’ fees, and $19,128.08 in reimbursement of expenses.

In a press release dated July 12, 2005, Tripath Technology announced that it has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle the securities class action litigation entitled In re Tripath Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C 04 4681 SBA, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Tripath and certain of its current and former officers and/or directors. Under the terms of the Stipulation, the parties agreed that the Class Action will be dismissed in exchange for a payment of $200,000 in cash by Tripath and the issuance of 2.45 million shares of Tripath common stock which shall be exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933.

The original complaint charges Tripath, Adya Tripathi, and David Eichler with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company improperly recognized revenue from sales of product that was eventually returned to the distributor; (2) that as a result of this, the Company had to increase its sales return reserve for the third quarter and had to take a charge of approximately $4.0 - $4.5 million for excess inventory; (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls, especially the ability to adequately estimate distributor sales returns in accordance with SFAS no. 48; and (5) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times and the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their statements regarding the Company.

The complaint further alleges that on October 22, 2004, Tripath announced that net revenues for the third quarter of 2004 would be significantly below prior guidance of $4 - $4.5 million. Moreover, Tripath announced that it may have to restate its revenue for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. In addition, Tripath planed to take a charge of approximately $4.0 - $4.5 million for excess inventory. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Tripath fell $.75 per share, or 49.34 percent, on October 25, 2004, to close at $.77 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TRPH
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-04681
JUDGE: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
DATE FILED: 11/04/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/29/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/22/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Green Welling LLP (San Francisco)
    235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, Green Welling LLP (San Francisco), CA 94104
    415.477.6700 415.477.6710 · gw@classcounsel.com
  2. 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
  3. Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP (Los Angeles)
    One California Plaza. 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900, Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90071
    213..617.1200 213..617.1975 ·
  4. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  5. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date