Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/19/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 23, 2006

The original complaint charges Amkor and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Amkor operates as a subcontractor of semiconductor packaging and test services worldwide. The Company offers traditional packaging, which includes traditional leadframe products; and advanced packaging, which includes advanced leadframes and laminate products.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s increasing financial performance. These statements were each materially false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (a) that the Company was stuffing its customers with inventory far in excess of demand for the products and, as a result, customer inventories were rising above historical levels such that future sales would be impacted; (b) that the Company was experiencing rapidly rising material costs which were far in excess of budgeted material costs, thereby negatively impacting the Company’s profit margins; (c) that the Company had stuffed its distribution channels prior to its note offering in order to artificially inflate the Company’s operating results so that the Company could successfully raise $152 million; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company and its business were lacking in a reasonable basis at all times and therefore materially false and misleading.

On April 27, 2004, Amkor issued a press release announcing that the Company was experiencing weakness for its cell phone products. Upon this news, the price of Amkor common stock declined from $13.42 per share to $9.16 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

On July 1, 2004, Amkor issued a press release announcing that it could not meet its expected guidance for net income in the second quarter of 2004. In response to this announcement the price of Amkor common stock declined from $8.18 per share to $5.79 per share on extremely heavy trading volume of 17.2 million shares.

The complaint further alleges that on or around August 22, 2005, Amkor issued a press release announcing that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a formal order of investigation concerning certain trading in Amkor securities. The SEC investigation relates to transactions in the Company’s securities by certain individuals, including certain insiders or former insiders and persons associated with them.

As summarized by the Company’s Form 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2008, on January 23, 2006, a purported securities class action suit entitled Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et al., was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Amkor and certain of its current and former officers. Subsequently, other law firms filed two similar cases, which were consolidated with the initial complaint. In August 2006 and again in November 2006, the plaintiffs amended the complaint. The plaintiffs added additional officer, director and former director defendants and alleged improprieties in certain option grants. The amended complaint further alleges that defendants improperly recorded and accounted for the options in violation of generally accepted accounting principles and made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in its disclosures in violation of the federal securities laws, during the period from July 2001 to July 2006. The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23, compensatory damages, costs and expenses, and such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper. On December 28, 2006, pursuant to motion by defendants, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred this action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On September 25, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed this case with prejudice. On October 23, 2007, plaintiffs filed an appeal from the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

According to a press release dated December 11, 2008, Amkor Technology, Inc. announced that it has entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs to settle the securities class action litigation filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors relating to, among other matters, the company’s historical stock option practices. The purported class action, entitled Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et al., was filed in 2006 on behalf of purchasers of Amkor's common stock between July 26, 2001 and July 26, 2006. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company and the other defendants will receive a full and complete release of all claims in the litigation in exchange for the payment of an aggregate of $11.25 million. The company’s directors and officers liability insurance carrier will pay $9 million of the settlement amount and the company will pay the balance. The settlement is subject to review and approval by the court.

On June 12, 2009, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement. The parties have completed confirmatory discovery and finalized formal settlement papers in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. On June 11, 2009, the parties filed with the Ninth Circuit a Joint Stipulation Requesting Order of Partial Remand to District Court, to allow this Court to consider, approve and/or implement the Settlement, including the consideration and/or approval of the Settlement terms, the plan of allocation, and Co-Lead Counsel’s fees and expenses. On July 13, 2009, that motion was granted by the Ninth Circuit. The action has been remanded to District Court. On July 16, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of settlement.

On August 26, 2009, Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt preliminarily approved the settlement. The Settlement Fairness Hearing was set for November 18, 2009. On November 18, 2009, the Court granted the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses.

On August 10, 2011, an Order Authorizing Distribution of Class Settlement Fund was issued in accordance with the Final Order and Judgment.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AMKR
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. Arizona
DOCKET #: 06-CV-00298
JUDGE: Hon. M. Faith Angell
DATE FILED: 01/23/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/27/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/01/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  2. Goldman Scarlato & Karon P.C.
    101 W. Elm Street, Suite 360, Goldman Scarlato & Karon P.C., PA 19428
    484.342.0700 484.342.0700 · info@gsk-law.com
  3. Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross (Philadelphia) (former)
    1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross (Philadelphia) (former), PA 19102
    215-561-3600 215-561-3000 · bmgross@bernardmgross.com
  4. 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
  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. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.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
  9. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Arizona
DOCKET #: 07-CV-00278
JUDGE: Hon. M. Faith Angell
DATE FILED: 02/07/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/26/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/26/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Goldman Scarlato & Karon P.C.
    101 W. Elm Street, Suite 360, Goldman Scarlato & Karon P.C., PA 19428
    484.342.0700 484.342.0700 · info@gsk-law.com
  2. Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
    100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
  3. 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