Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/13/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: October 05, 2006

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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MRVL
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 #: 06-CV-06286
JUDGE: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
DATE FILED: 10/05/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/03/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/03/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP
    2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, CA 94598
    925.945.0200 925.945-8792 · info@bramsonplutzik.com
  2. Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran
    1050 30th Street, NW, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, DC 20007
    202.337.8000 202.337.8090 · contact@ftllaw.com
  3. Hulett Harper LLP
    550 West C Street, Suite 1600, Hulett Harper LLP, CA 92101
    619.338.1133 619.3381139 · mailto:office@hulettharper.com
  4. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA)
    100 Pine Street, 26th Floor, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA), CA 94111
    415.772.4700 415.677.1233 · info@kaplanfox.com
  5. Paskowitz & Associates
    60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, Paskowitz & Associates, NY 10165
    212.685.0969 212.685.2306 · classattorney@aol.com
  6. Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York)
    350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000 , Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York), NY 10118
    · classattorney@pipeline.com
  7. 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 #: 06-CV-06286
JUDGE: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
DATE FILED: 08/16/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/27/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/02/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
    One South Broad Street - Suite 2100, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. , PA 19107
    215.238.1700 215.238.1960 · info@kohnswift.com
  2. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Radnor)
    280 King of Prussia Road, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Radnor), PA 19087
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbtklaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date