Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 08/12/2010 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 11, 2006

The original complaint charges Broadcom and certain of its officers and directors with issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 14, 2006, Broadcom announced that it would record more than $750 million in added expenses and restate its past earnings related to the illegal backdating of stock options. Prior to any news of options backdating reaching in the market, shares of Broadcom traded at slightly above $40.00 per share and, thereafter, shares traded down to approximately $27.50 per share -- a rapid decline of over 31%.

On November 29, 2006 the judge entered an order stating that the lead plaintiff "shall file a consolidated class-action complaint within 60 days of Broadcoms filing of the Restatement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission." The lead plaintiffs filed a motion for an extension of time to file the consolidated complaint, which the judge denied on March 15, 2007. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling and the US Court of Appeals granted their motion to stay the March order.

The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 21, 2008. Defendants responded with motions to dismiss the complaint on June 20, 2008. The judge ruled in favor of the defendants on October 6, 2008, but provided plaintiffs twenty days to amend and re-file.

The lead plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated Complaint was filed on October 27, 2008. Renewed motions for dismissal were filed on November 24, 2008. On February 2, 2009, the judge denied the defendants' motions, with the exception of Ernst & Young, Broadcom's auditor and a couple individuals. Plaintiffs filed a notice with the court that they will not seek to amend their complaint.

On March 31, 2009, Judge Manuel L. Real signed the Order and Final Judgment as to defendant Ernst & Young LLP. On April 28, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to a press release dated December 29, 2009, fabless semiconductor vendor Broadcom Corp. has agreed in principle to settle for $160.5 million in cash a securities class action litigation pending against the company and some of its current and former officers and directors, the company said Tuesday (Dec. 29). Under the proposed settlement, the claims against Broadcom and its officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice, Broadcom (Irvine, Calif.) said. The company said it expects to record the settlement amount as a one-time charge in its fourth quarter financial statement. The proposed settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a final stipulation of settlement, and approval by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Broadcom said. ... Earlier this month, a U.S. District Court judge dismissed related securities fraud charges against Broadcom co-founder Henry Nicholas and William Ruehle, the company's former chief financial officer, citing prosecutor misconduct. The same judge earlier dismissed a guilty plea entered by Broadcom co-founder Henry Samueli on charges that he lied to investigators in connection with the stock options backdating probe.

On April 30, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of proposed Class Action settlement with Broadcom defendants, which was approved on June 1, 2010. The Settlement Hearing will be held on August 2, 2010, to determine, among other things, whether the proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate, and should be approved by the Court.

According to a press release dated June 11, 2010, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-captioned action has been certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement only and that a settlement of certain claims for $160,500,000 has been proposed by the Settling Parties. Claims against defendant Ernst & Young LLP are not part of the Settlement and continue to be litigated on appeal. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Manuel L. Real of the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the Spring Street Courthouse, Room 8, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, at 10:00 a.m., on August 2, 2010 to determine: whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; whether the Settlement Class should be certified and a class representative and class counsel be appointed; whether the proposed plan of allocation for distribution of the settlement proceeds should be approved; to consider the request of Lead Counsel for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses; and to consider the request of Lead Plaintiff, if any, for reimbursement of its reasonable costs and expenses relating to its representations of the Settlement Class. The Court may change the date of the hearing without providing another notice.

On August 2, 2010, the hearing was held before Judge Manuel L. Real. According to the Court Minutes, there are no objectors to the settlement present. The Court grants both the motion for final approval of the proposed class action settlement with Broadcom defendants and the motion for attorney's fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses.

According to a press release dated April 14, 2011, a federal appeals court Thursday reinstated a class-action lawsuit filed by Broadcom Corp. investors against Ernst & Young, saying the auditors should have known about an option-backdating scheme at the Irvine tech company. A lower-court judge had dismissed the case against Ernst & Young after concluding the plaintiffs hadn’t shown that the auditors knew that the value of Broadcom’s stock was probably inflated by the company’s manipulation of its financial statements. Thursday’s ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed that dismissal and scolded Ernst & Young for not acting to stop the $2.2-billion backdating scheme. ... The appeals court action sends the case back to Real for trial, barring other successful legal challenges by the defendants.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BRCM
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 06-CV-5036
JUDGE: Hon. Manuel L. Real
DATE FILED: 08/11/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/21/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/13/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Braun Law Group, P.C. (Former)
    12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 920, Braun Law Group, P.C. (Former), CA 90025
    888.658.7100 · info@braunlawgroup.com
  2. Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co. LPA
    55 Public Square Suite 1950, Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co. LPA, OH 44113
    216.621.8484 · cmjani@climacolaw.com
  3. 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
  4. Schubert & Reed LLP
    Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1050, Schubert & Reed LLP, CA 94111
    415.788.4220 415.788.0161 · mail@schubert-reed.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 06-CV-5036
JUDGE: Hon. Manuel L. Real
DATE FILED: 10/27/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/21/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/13/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date