Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 09/29/2010 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 06, 2008

The original complaint charges that Maxim and certain of its former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging in improper stock option backdating that caused the issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements during the Class Period.

Specifically, the complaint asserts that on January 17, 2008, the Company announced that it would be restating its financial statements to record between $550 million and $650 million of additional stock-based compensation expense and that its previously issued financial statements could no longer be relied on. As a result of these adverse disclosures, the Company's stock price has declined 22%.

On April 7, 2008, several motions were filed by certain groups and individuals for the appointment of lead plaintiffs and to approve the selection of lead counsels. The judge entered an order on May 15 consolidating all related cases and appointing the Public Funds Group - comprised of the Cobb County Government Employees' Pension Plan, the Dekalb County Pension Plan and the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System - to be appointed as lead plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint on November 14, 2008 adding a former managing director and treasurer of Maxim to its defendants list. The defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on January 30, 2009. On July 16, 2009, Judge James Ware granting in part and denying in part Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and denied the individual defendant’s motion to dismiss. On December 11, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.

According to a press release dated May 5, 2010, Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (NASDAQ:MXIM) announced that it has entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted against all defendants in the putative class action concerning the Company's stock option accounting practices captioned In re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-08-00832-JW (N.D. Cal.). The agreement in principle provides for the payment of $173 million by the Company. The after-tax cash impact is estimated to be $110 million. The memorandum of understanding contemplates the negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement, and the settlement is subject to notice to the putative class and final approval by the Court.

On July 13, 2010, the Court entered the Order preliminarily approving the settlement. The Final Approval Hearing was set for September 27, 2010. On September 29, 2010, the Court entered the order approving the plan of allocation and the settlement. The case is now dismissed with prejudice. A hearing will follow regarding the plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses.

On November 1, 2010, Judge James Ware granted the motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. According to the Order, the Court hereby awards attorney fees of $29,282,243.72 (17% of the $173,000,000 Settlement Fund net of Litigation Expenses), payable to Lead Counsel. The Court also grants Lead Counsel’s request for reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $706,337.54.

On December 1, 2010, a Notice of Appeal was filed as to the Order on the motion for attorney fees. The appeal was dismissed by the appellants by the Mandate entered on January 5, 2011.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MXIM
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 #: 08-CV-00832
JUDGE: Hon. Patricia V. Trumbull
DATE FILED: 02/06/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/29/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/17/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. 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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 08-CV-00832
JUDGE: Hon. Patricia V. Trumbull
DATE FILED: 11/14/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/29/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/17/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego)
    12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta)
    2300 Promenade II; 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta), GA 30309
    888.873.3999 404.876.4476 · info@chitwoodlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date