Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 11/03/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 11, 2015

According to the law firm press release, on September 11, 2015, the Company reported a quarterly loss of $382.4 million for its fiscal second quarter, whereas analysts on average had predicted a quarterly profit of $11.9 million. The Company also announced an internal probe by its Audit Committee into Marvell’s accounting practices including its revenue recognition, litigation reserves, and internal controls. On this news shares of Marvell fell $1.71 per share, or nearly 17%, to close on September 11, 2015 at $8.84 per share, on unusually high volume.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that : (1) Marvell had engaged in inappropriate revenue recognition practices; (2) the Company’s management permitted an inappropriate and ineffective control environment; (3) as a result, Marvell’s key accounting metrics were misstated; (4) that the Company lacked adequate controls at all relevant times; (5) and as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Marvell’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 27, 2015, this case was transferred to the Northern District of California.

On February 8, 2016, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on March 19.

On October 12, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss with leave to amend.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: Bermuda

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 #: 15-CV-07214
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 09/11/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/20/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/10/2015
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 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-05447
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 03/19/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/20/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/07/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue LLP
    4748 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue LLP, DC 20016
    (202) 362-0041 (202) 362-2640 ·
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date