This excerpt taken from the BCSI 10-Q filed Sep 9, 2008.
Actions Pending Against Us
On May 18, 2005, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, alleging that certain of our officers and directors violated their fiduciary duties to the Company by making false or misleading statements about our prospects between February 20, 2004 and May 27, 2004. On July 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, adding allegations that certain current and former officers and directors violated their fiduciary duties to us since our initial public offering by granting and failing to account correctly for stock options. That amended complaint sought various types of relief on our behalf from the individual defendants. On September 8, 2006, another and substantively identical purported shareholder derivative action was filed against certain of our current and former officers and directors. Both of these state derivative cases have been consolidated.
On August 8 and September 5, 2006, two purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain of our current and former officers and directors. Like the state derivative actions, the federal derivative actions allege that certain of our current and former officers and directors violated their fiduciary duties since our initial public offering by granting and failing to account correctly for stock options and seek various relief on our behalf from the individual defendants. Both of these federal cases have been consolidated.
On November 30, 2007, the federal and state plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in their respective actions, which focus on our historical stock option granting practices and assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and other state and federal law claims against certain of our current and former officers and directors.
The plaintiffs in the federal action, by letter dated June 20, 2008, demanded our Board of Directors take action to remedy the conduct complained of. The demand followed our filing of a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to make a pre-suit demand. The demand letter largely repeats the allegations and requested relief in the federal and state derivative actions. The federal court has stayed the action until early October 2008 to permit our Board of Directors to consider the demand. In response to the demand letter, our Board of Directors formed a special committee, composed of directors James R. Tolonen and Keith Geeslin, on June 25, 2008. The special committee was granted plenary authority to decide whether it is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to pursue or otherwise resolve the claims raised in the demand letter and in the federal and state derivative actions and any other claims of the Company that the special committee deems necessary or appropriate to consider concerning our historical stock option practices.
The court in the state action has stayed that action pending a case management conference presently scheduled for late October 2008.