Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/20/2009 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: April 17, 2006

According to a press release dated April 18, 2006, the Complaint charges that defendants violated the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing materially false and misleading financial information. The Complaint alleges that the during the Class Period, the Company reported materially false and misleading revenues for each reporting period in 2005. In particular, the Complaint alleges that the Company violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and the Federal Securities Laws, by failing to recognize sales to one of its affiliates, PTI, on a consolidated basis and recognizing sales that were uncollectible, which resulted in the Company overstating its revenues for 2005.

The complaint further alleges that on or around April 11, 2006, the Company shocked the market when it announced, among other things, that its financial statements for 2005 should no longer be relied upon because the Company improperly recognized sales to PTI because the Company failed to consolidate PTI's results and accounted for sales that had uncertain collectibility. The Company admitted that it controls PTI as it has the ability to elect two-thirds of PTI's Board. As a result, the Company announced that revenues would be reduced by approximately $3.6 million and $2.5 million, for the fourth quarter of 2005 and fiscal year 2005, respectively. Following these adverse disclosures, the Company's stock price dropped nearly 37.2%.

The class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of Pixelplus American Depositary Shares during the class period, including purchasers in the Company's Initial Public Offering

On March 28, 2007 the judge granted motions to appoint lead plaintiff and approved the selection of lead counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on June 25, 2007; defendants filed for dismissal on August 24, 2007.

On November 06, 2008, an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice to determine whether the proposed settlement of the Litigation on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class.

Originally, the settlement agreement called for a $1,000,000 cash payment from the company and $355,000 from the underwriter defendants. However, on March 10, 2009, after an order from the judge approving an addendum to the Stipulation of Settlement, the Company issued a press release regarding changes to the agreement. According to the firm, due to the economic turmoil in Asia, the Company is not able to fund the $1,000,000 cash settlement. Instead, through its insurer, 500,000,000 South Korean Won ($331,219.43 per exchange rates on 3/10/2009) will be deposited into the escrow account within two business days of Final Approval of the settlement. Expected investor recovery has dropped to $.13 per ADS. All other terms of the settlement agreement remain intact.

Final Approval and Dismissal of the case was entered on March 20, 2009.

On November 09, 2009, an order approving distribution of net settlement fund and awarding additional attorneys' fees was entered on the court’s docket. The Lead Plaintiffs proposed distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants was approved.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: Korea

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PXPL
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 06-CV-2951
JUDGE: Hon. Thomas P. Griesa
DATE FILED: 04/17/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/21/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/11/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York)
    350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York), NY 10118
    212.686.1060 212.202.3827 · lrosen@rosenlegal.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 06-CV-2951
JUDGE: Hon. Thomas P. Griesa
DATE FILED: 06/25/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/21/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/11/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (New Orleans)
    650 Poydras St. Suite 2150, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (New Orleans), LA 70130
    504.455.1400 · lewis.kahn@kglg.com
  2. Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (NY)
    12 East 41st Street, 12th Floor, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (NY), NY 10016
    212.920.4310 212.696.3730 · info@kglg.com
  3. Motley Rice LLC (Atlanta)
    One Georgia Center; 600 West Peachtree Street, Suite 800, Motley Rice LLC (Atlanta), GA 30308
    1-800-768-4026 · inquiry@motleyrice.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date