Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/12/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 20, 2005

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed alleging that defendants Silicon Storage and one or more of its officers and/or directors violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading public statements, which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Silicon Storage concealed the following facts: that its sales and margins were being materially impacted by Macronix and Intel's actively lowering their average selling prices; that Silicon Storage was not on track to achieve its profitability projections; and that its gross margin projections were overstated.

The complaint further alleges that on December 20, 2004, Silicon Storage issued a press release announcing that "its revenue in the fourth quarter is expected to be between $102 and $108 million versus previous guidance of $120 to $130 million. Due to current market conditions, the company expects to record an inventory charge of between $20 and $25 million for excess inventory and to write certain products down to their current estimated market values." As result of this news, Silicon Storage shares fell from a close of $7.01 per share on December 20, 2004, to close at $5.99 per share on December 21, 2004, on unusually high trading volume.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, in January and February 2005, multiple putative shareholder class action complaints were filed against SST and certain directors and officers alleging insider trading and manipulation of stock prices, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, following Company’s announcement of anticipated financial results for the fourth quarter of 2004. On March 24, 2005, the putative class actions were consolidated under the caption In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. C 05 00295 PJH (N.D. Cal.). On May 3, 2005, the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton appointed the "Louisiana Funds Group," consisting of the Louisiana School Employees' Retirement System and the Louisiana District Attorneys' Retirement System, to serve as lead plaintiff and the law firms of Pomeranz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP and Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo to serve as lead counsel and liaison counsel, respectively, for the class. Lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 15, 2005, which the Court dismissed with leave to amend on March 10, 2006. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 1, 2006, again seeking unspecified damages for alleged violations of federal securities laws during the period from April 21, 2004 to December 20, 2004. The Company responded with a motion to dismiss on June 19, 2006. On March 9, 2007, the Court issued an Order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss, with prejudice, and on March 12, 2007 entered a judgment that plaintiffs take nothing and the action be dismissed on the merits. Lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal but did not follow through and by stipulation, the suit was dismissed.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SSTI
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 #: 05-CV-00295
JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
DATE FILED: 01/20/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/30/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/20/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
  2. Dyer & Shuman, LLP
  3. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  4. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
  5. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
  7. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  8. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  9. Wechsler Harwood LLP
  10. Wolf Popper, LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 05-CV-00295
JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
DATE FILED: 05/02/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/21/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/20/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (former Chicago)
    1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2225, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (former Chicago), IL 60602
    312.377.1181 312.377.1184 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date