Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 01/09/2014 (Other)

Filing Date: November 18, 2009

According to a press release dated November 18, 2009, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading financial statements, press releases and SEC filings. Specifically, the financial statements and information issued by the Company in its press releases, quarterly reports for 2008 and 2009 and annual report for the fiscal year 2008 were false and misleading because defendants included unsubstantiated accounting entries related to cost of goods sold in Sun’s Philippines operations and false and misleading certifications, required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, attesting to the accuracy of Sun’s financial statements and the adequacy of its internal controls over financial
reporting. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, Sun securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On November 16, 2009, after the market closed, Sun filed a report on Form 8-K with the SEC stating that because of accounting improprieties, the Company’s previously issued interim financial statements for each of the 2009 quarterly periods, the previously reported financial results for the fiscal year ending December 28, 2008, the financial information in its 2009 quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and its 2008 annual report on Form 10-K, and the guidance provided by the Company for the 2009 fiscal year, should no longer be relied upon. On this news, Sun’s stock fell 19% to close at $22.19 per share on November 17, 2009.

On February 3, 2010, Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the motion to consolidated all the related cases. On March 5, 2010, Judge Breyer granted the motion to appoint the Institutional Investor Funds as lead plaintiff. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer have been approved as lead counsel. On May 28, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint, adding company directors and underwriters as named defendants in the action. Lead plaintiffs also added claims pursuant to §§11(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On August 5, 2010, the defendants filed various motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On March 1, 2011, the motions to dismiss were granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs have 20 days to file an amended complaint.

On April 18, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, naming additional insiders of the company as defendants in the action. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2011. The motion was granted in part and denied in part on December 19, 2011.

On February 1, 2013, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 25.

On July 3, 2013, the Court entered a Final Judgment approving the Settlement and ordered this case dismissed with prejudice. On the same date, the Court also issued an Order approving the Plan of Allocation. Finally, the Court awarded attorneys' fees and expenses.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SPWRA
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 #: 09-CV-05473
JUDGE: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
DATE FILED: 11/18/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/17/2008
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/16/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 · info@csgrr.com/
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  3. Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross (Philadelphia)
    John Wanamaker Building; 100 Penn Square East, Suite 450, Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross (Philadelphia), PA 19107
    215.561.3600 215.561.3600 · susang@bernardmgross.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 09-CV-05473
JUDGE: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
DATE FILED: 04/18/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/17/2008
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/16/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (San Francisco)
    580 California Street, Suite 1750, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (San Francisco), CA 94104
    415.400.3000 415.400.3000 · info@btkmc.com
  2. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego)
    12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  3. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date