Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 01/19/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 16, 2004

On January 19, 2007 the judge entered his final order dismissing the first and second claims against the defendants with prejudice, but dismissing the third claim without prejudice. The plaintiffs, however, have chosen not to pursue the case and the case was administratively closed on February 9, 2007.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2006, the defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss the case on February 6, 2006. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 24, 2006, and defendant’s reply was filed on June 14, 2006.

As disclosed by the same SEC filing, in December 2004 and January 2005, the Company and certain current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in several complaints seeking monetary damages filed on behalf of all persons who purchased Company common stock during a specified class period. These suits were filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey (New Jersey cases) and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (California cases), alleging that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts. The California cases were consolidated with the New Jersey cases so that all of the class action suits, now known as Witriol v. Conexant, et al. (Witriol), are being heard in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey by the same judge. The defendants believe these charges are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation. On September 1, 2005, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the case. On November 23, 2005, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint, which was filed on December 5, 2005.

The original complaint alleges that Conexant violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements concerning its integration with Globespan. More specifically, the complaint alleges that on March 1, 2004, Conexant acquired Globespan. Conexant claimed, "We have made outstanding progress toward integrating the organizations, systems, technologies and processes of Conexant and GlobespanVirata over the past two months and are in a strong position as we begin combined operations today." However, the merger had not been successful, as was later admitted, and the Company faced severe problems combining the two companies' parallel DSL and wireless technology offerings. Sales and administration operations also experienced integrations problems. Conexant claimed that the growth in its wireless LAN ("WLAN") business was slowing. Integration problems also beset the Company's WLAN business, formerly the top producer for WLAN. Defendants also neglected research and development of new products, resulting in huge market share losses.

The complaint further alleges that on November 4, 2004, Conexant announced that its "fourth fiscal quarter 2004 revenues of $213.1 million decreased 20 percent from the third fiscal quarter revenues of $267.6 million." As a result of this disclosure, Conexant's stock price fell 10% on November 5, 2004. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP and its predecessor firms have devoted its practice to shareholder class actions and complex commercial litigation for more than thirty years and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders in class actions throughout the United States.

Note: The complaint have been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Conexant Systems, Inc. between March 1, 2004 and November 4, 2004, including all former holders of GlobespanVirata, Inc. who acquired Conexant shares in the merger completed March 1, 2004.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CNXT
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: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 04-CV-06219
JUDGE: Hon. Stanley R. Chesler
DATE FILED: 12/16/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/01/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/04/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
    3620 East Layton Ave., Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, WI 53110
    866-264-3995 414-482-8001 · inquiry@ademilaw.com
  2. Braun Law Group, P.C. (Former)
    12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 920, Braun Law Group, P.C. (Former), CA 90025
    888.658.7100 · info@braunlawgroup.com
  3. Chitwood & Harley LLP
    1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Chitwood & Harley LLP, GA 30309
    888.873.3999 404.873.4476 · info@chitwoodlaw.com
  4. Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf
    Park 80 Plaza West-One, Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, NJ 7663
    201845.9600 · info@njlawfirm.com
  5. 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
  6. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  7. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Delaware)
    919 N. Market Street, Suite 411, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Delaware), DE 19801
    302.984.0597 302.984.0870 · info@milbergweiss.com
  8. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  9. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  10. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  11. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
    35 East State Street, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, PA 19063
    877.891.9880 · jshah@classactioncounsel.com
  12. 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
  13. 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: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 04-CV-06219
JUDGE: Hon. Stanley R. Chesler
DATE FILED: 12/05/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/01/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/04/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC (Newark)
    Two Gateway Center - 12th Floor, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC (Newark), NJ 07102-5003
    973.623.3000 ·
  2. 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