Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/19/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 02, 2005

The original class action was commenced on behalf of those who acquired Leadis Technology, Inc. common stock pursuant to the Company's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus for its initial public offering on June 16, 2004. The complaint charges Leadis and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Leadis designs, develops and markets mixed-signal semiconductors that enable and enhance the features and capabilities of small panel displays. The Company's core products are color display drivers with integrated controllers, which are critical components of displays used in mobile consumer electronics devices.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on June 16, 2004, Leadis accomplished its IPO of 6 million shares for net proceeds of $76.6 million, pursuant to a Registration Statement and Prospectus. The Registration Statement and Prospectus failed to disclose that Leadis was engaging in overshipments of its OLED product.

The complaint further alleges on or around October 22, 2004, Leadis announced that its fourth quarter results would be much lower than analysts' expectations. Leadis admitted that a drop in sales from OLED was going to hurt profit in the quarter as handset makers bought less expensive equipment. The shares fell $8.15 to $8.79 on October 22, 2004. Further, on or around January 10, 2005, Leadis announced it was not comfortable with the First Call estimates of its revenues for the first quarter of 2005. As a result of this news, Leadis stock dropped further to below $8 per share.
According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, on April 20, 2005, the court consolidated the two actions. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers that acquired shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to the Company’s registration statement and prospectus. The claims appear to be based on allegations that at the time of the IPO, demand for the Company’s OLED (color organic light-emitting diodes) products was already slowing due to competition from one of the Company’s existing customers and that the Company failed to disclose that it was not well positioned for continued success as a result of such competition. On October 28, 2005, the Company and other defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. By Order dated March 1, 2006, the Court granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, with prejudice, and judgment was entered in favor of the Company and all other defendants. On or about March 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. on April 18, 2008, the Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the decision of the District Court and remanding the case back to the District Court. The Company and other defendants intend to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the third quarter of 2008. If this petition is not granted, or the recent decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, the Company expects that the case will return to the District Court level for further proceedings at the early stages of litigation.

On January 6, 2008, a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement was filed. A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed the same day. The settlement is in the amount of $4,200,000 in cash, to be paid by Leadis’ insurance carrier. On February 4, 2009, District Court by Judge Charles R. Breyer preliminarily approved the settlement. A Fairness Hearing was set for June 19, 2009. On June 19, 2009, the settlement was approved and the action was dismissed with prejudice. The case is now closed.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LDIS
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-00882
JUDGE: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
DATE FILED: 03/02/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/16/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/22/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza), NY 10119
    212.279.5050 212.279.3655 · JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com
  2. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  3. 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
  4. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  5. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY)
    200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY), NY 11747
    631-367-7100 631-367-1173 ·
  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. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  8. 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
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 05-CV-00882
JUDGE: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
DATE FILED: 08/08/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/16/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/22/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
No Document Title Filing Date