Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/06/2016 (Other)

Filing Date: March 12, 2014

According to the law firm press release, MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation designs and manufactures analog and mixed-signal semiconductor products for high-volume consumer applications. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation provides its products and services to consumer electronics OEMs, subsystem designers, and contract manufacturers through a direct sales force, as well as through a network of authorized agents and distributors in the United States, Korea, Taiwan, China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Macau.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company lacked adequate controls over financial reporting; (ii) the Company was improperly recognizing revenues; (iii) the Company's prior financial statements required restatement; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On Jan. 27, 2014, after the close of trading, the Company announced that it would postpone its fourth quarter 2013 earnings release and investor conference call, previously scheduled for Tuesday, January 28, 2014, to provide additional time for the Company to complete its review of its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2013. On this news, MagnaChip securities declined $1.41 per share, or over 8%, to close at $16.16 per share on January 28, 2014.

On March 11, 2014, the Company issued a press release announcing the need to restate its prior financial statements, as well as identifying material weaknesses in its internal controls. On this news, the Company's shares fell as much as $1.83, or about 13%, to as low as $12.50 in intraday trading on March 11, 2014.

On July 3, 2014, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a corrected and amended complaint on October 1.

On March 4, 2016, the Court issued an Order denying the Motion to Dismiss of the issuer defendant.

On February 5, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. Due to deficiencies in Settlement documents, the Court declined to preliminarily approve this Settlement on April 7. After the parties corrected the deficiencies, the Court granted preliminary approval on July 18. The Settlement was granted final approval on November 21.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: Korea

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MX
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. California
DOCKET #: 14-CV-01160
JUDGE: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
DATE FILED: 03/12/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/30/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/11/2014
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. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 14-CV-01160
JUDGE: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
DATE FILED: 06/26/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/01/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/12/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (New SF Office)
    One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (New SF Office), CA 94104
    (415) 288-4545 (415) 288-4534 ·
  4. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016
    (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827 ·
No Document Title Filing Date