Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/05/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 14, 2018

According to the Complaint, Microchip Technology Incorporated ("Microchip" or the "Company") is a provider of microcontroller, mixed-signal analog and Flash-IP solutions.

On March 1, 2018, Microchip announced that it would acquire Microsemi Corp. for $8.35 billion. On May 29, 2018, Microchip announced the completion of the Microsemi acquisition. During the Class Period, Microchip represented that the Microsemi acquisition would be “immediately accretive” by increasing Microchip’s earnings per share as it “will add further operational and customer scale to Microchip.” Microchip’s CEO represented that the “deal is accretive on day one without doing anything, without any synergy,” and was “strategically and financially, a very compelling transaction.”

On August 9, 2018, Microchip's CEO admitted that Microsemi “was extremely aggressive in shipping inventory into the distribution channel” which “will provide some headwind for revenue for the next couple of quarters” for Microchip. As a result, Microchip common stock declined $10.67 or nearly 11% on August 10, 2018. The Complaint alleges that Defendants’ statements during the Class Period were materially false and misleading during the Class Period and that Microchip had done inadequate due diligence and was unable to make any statements concerning whether the Microsemi acquisition was “immediately accretive.”

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MCHP
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: D. Arizona
DOCKET #: 18-CV-02914
JUDGE: Hon. John J Tuchi
DATE FILED: 09/14/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/02/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/09/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix)
    2901 North Central Avenue - Suite 1000, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix), AZ 85012
    602.274.1100 602.274.1199 ·
  2. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
No Document Title Filing Date