Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. ("Marvell" or the Company) is an American company that designs integrated circuits primarily for data storage, networking, and communications.

The original Complaint alleges that Marvell and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the backdating of the grant of stock options to management. The Company has now said that its financial statements from June of 2000 to the present cannot be relied upon, and that it will be restating financial results. The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only potentially lines the pockets of the executives, but here resulted in the overstatement of Marvell's earnings during the Class Period, and the under-booking of compensation expenses. Under accounting rules, back-dating an option grant is deemed the payment of additional compensation and must be accounted for as an expense, which Marvell failed to do.

The Complaint further alleges that on or around October 3, 2006, the Defendants announced that the Company would be forced to restate its financial statements to correct for the backdating of stock options. From the time that assertions were first made in the press that Marvell's options practices might be questionable to the date of this announcement, Marvell stock sank from over $28 per share to roughly $16 per share.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2008, between October 5, 2006 and November 13, 2006, four putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The Complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the grants of stock options. The Complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company’s common shares during the period from October 3, 2001 to October 3, 2006, unspecified damages, interest, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and disbursements. Pursuant to an order of the court dated February 2, 2007, these four putative class actions were consolidated as a single action entitled In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Securities Litigation. On August 16, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action Complaint. On October 18, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action Complaint. The motion is fully briefed and was argued on February 15, 2008.

On September 29, 2008, Judge Ronald M. Whyte issued an Order on the Defendants’ various motions to dismiss. According to the Order, the Judge Whyte granted in part and denied in part three of the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and granted one of the individual Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

According to a press release dated June 9, 2009, Marvell Technology Group Ltd. (Nasdaq: MRVL), a world leader in storage, communications and consumer silicon solutions, today announced that it had entered into an agreement to resolve a shareholder class action lawsuit filed on August 16, 2007 against Marvell and certain of its former and current officers and directors relating to Marvell's historic stock option granting practices. The settlement provides for a payment by Marvell to the class of $72 million. … This class action settlement is subject to preliminary and then, following notice to class members, final approval by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Final approval of this settlement and the settlement of the shareholder derivative lawsuit announced previously would mark the end of all shareholder litigation involving Marvell related to its historic stock option granting practices.

On November 13, 2009, Judge Whyte granted the motion for final approval of the settlement and also granted the motion for attorney fees. According to the Order, co-lead Counsel are awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of 20.5% of the Settlement Amount and a total of $257,144.07 in reimbursement of litigation expenses. The case is now closed.