Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/08/2012 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 09, 2007

The original complaint charges Motorola and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Motorola builds, markets and sells products, services and applications that make connections to people, information and entertainment through broadband, embedded systems and wireless networks.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in the summer of 2006, Motorola's poor financial performance had depressed its stock price to below $19 per share. In order to artificially inflate the price of Motorola stock, defendants began a series of false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, defendants repeatedly told investors to expect strong growth in sales and revenues. On October 17, 2006, defendants announced that Motorola had failed to meet its revenue and sales projections. As a result of this announcement, Motorola's stock price declined over 7% in two trading days. Then on January 4, 2007, defendants announced that Motorola's fourth quarter 2006 results also failed to meet expectations. This time, the Company's stock price declined almost 8%.

On October 16, 2007, the Court issued the Order signed by U.S. District Judge James B. Moran consolidating the actions and appointing the Macomb County Employees’ Retirement System as Lead Plaintiff and approving their selection of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Miller Law LLC as Lead and Liaison Counsel, respectively. On December 20, 2007, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed. The defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss on February 5, 2008.

On September 23, 2008, U.S. District Judge James B. Moran issued the Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing Count I as to two individual defendants and denied the remainder of the defendants' motion to dismiss. The parties soon after engaged in discovery proceedings. On February 27, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class. On August 25, 2009, that motion was granted.

On March 15, 2010, the plaintiffs were granted leave to file redacted second amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a (Redacted) Second Amended Complaint that day. On November 17, 2010, one of the individual defendants was voluntarily dismissed from the action. On March 14, 2011, a Stipulation of Dismissal of All Claims against two individual defendants. On March 25, 2011, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied on July 25, 2011.

On February 02, 2012, a Stipulation of Settlement was filed by the court outlining the understanding of the parties in conjunction with the resolution of the case.

On February 15, 2012, an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice was signed by the judge in this case.

On May 09, 2012, a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice; an Order Approving Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds; and an Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Reimbursement of Plaintiffs' Expenses were issued by the Court thereby dismissing this case with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MOT
Company Market: New York SE
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. Illinois
DOCKET #: 07-CV-04507
JUDGE: Hon. James B. Moran
DATE FILED: 08/09/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/19/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/04/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  3. Miller Law LLC
    115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910, Miller Law LLC, IL 60603
    312.676.2665 · info@MillerLawLLC.com
  4. 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
COURT: N.D. Illinois
DOCKET #: 07-CV-04507
JUDGE: Hon. James B. Moran
DATE FILED: 03/15/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/19/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/04/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date