Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/21/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 31, 2005

On September 21, 2007 Judge Chesney entered her order dismissing with prejudice the Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint. In her 16 page order Judge Chesney stated, "The Court previously dismissed the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint with leave to amend , providing a detailed description of the pleading deficiencies therein, and, as stated above , previously dismissed the TCAC with leave to amend, again providing a detailed description of the deficiencies therein. There is no indication that plaintiffs would, if I granted further leave to amend , be able to amend to cure the deficiencies in the 4CAC." No appeals have been filed, yet.

On March 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint on May 25, 2007.

According to the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 23, 2007, Silicon Image's motion to dismiss the Third Consolidated Amended Complaint is hereby granted, with leave to amend. The Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint must be filed by March 20, 2007.

On July 21, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Third Consolidated Amended Complaint.

According to the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 21, 2006, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint is hereby granted, and the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed with leave to amend. Any Third Consolidated Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than July 21, 2006.

The original Complaint alleges that defendants, Silicon Image and certain of its officers and directors, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") thereunder, thereby artificially inflating the price of Silicon Image securities. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company gave fourth quarter guidance on October 19, 2004 and has since undergone a time of undisclosed executive uncertainty, and distractions which were not disclosed while insiders sold Company stock. Plaintiffs allege that, on November 11, 2004, the Company appointed Steven Laub as Chief Executive Officer and President; that the Company failed to disclose material adverse facts, including fundamental disputes between Steven Laub and others at Silicon Image regarding Mr. Laub's relative role and responsibility which resulted in substantial distractions from achieving guidance; that 281,742 shares were sold by insiders at Silicon Image who were in a position to know of the material adverse information of the fundamental disputes and resulting distractions; and that the SEC commenced a formal investigation into trading in Silicon Image shares on January 25, 2005.

The complaint further alleges on or around January 25, 2005, the Company issued two press releases. One release, entitled "Silicon Image Announces Appointment of Steve Tirado as Chief Executive Officer Replacing Steven Laub," announced the resignation of its Chief Executive Officer and President, Steven Laub, and appointment of Christopher Paisley as the Company's new Chairman of the Board of Directors. The second press release, entitled "Silicon Image Reports Fourth Quarter 2004 Financials," stated that the Company's revenue in the fourth quarter decreased by 4% in comparison to the third quarter. The price of the Company stock has declined by 15% since January 24, 2005.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SIMG
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-00456
JUDGE: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
DATE FILED: 01/31/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/19/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/24/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York)
    500 Fifth Avenue, Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York), NY 10110
    212.608.1900 212.719.4677 · info@lshllp.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 05-CV-00456
JUDGE: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
DATE FILED: 03/30/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/25/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/13/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York)
    500 Fifth Avenue, Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York), NY 10110
    212.608.1900 212.719.4677 · info@lshllp.com
  2. Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP, NY 10022
    212-223-3900 212-371-5969 · inquiry@zsz.com
No Document Title Filing Date