Marvell Technology Group (MRVL)

IPO Securities Litigation.  On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit, which did not name the Company or any of its officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received “excessive” and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful “tie-in” agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to the Company’s IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants the Company and two of its officers, one of whom is also a director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Exchange Act. In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. These two actions have been consolidated and coordinated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers across the United States. Defendants in the coordinated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, thus allowing the case to proceed against the Company and the underwriters. Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs. In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, was submitted to the court for approval. On August 31, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. In December 2006, the appellate court overturned the certification of classes in the six focus cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings (the action involving the Company is not one of the six cases). Because class certification was a condition of the settlement, it was unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval. On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement based upon a stipulation among the parties to the settlement. Plaintiffs filed amended master allegations and amended complaints in the six focus cases. Defendants’ motions to dismiss those new complaints were denied in part and granted in part.

 

18

IPO Securities Litigation.  On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of our initial public offering (“IPO”) on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit, which did not name us or any of our officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received “excessive” and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful “tie-in” agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to our IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants us and two of our officers, one of whom is also a director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act. In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. These two actions have been consolidated and coordinated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers across the United States. Defendants in the coordinated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, thus allowing the case to proceed against us and the underwriters. Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs. In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, was submitted to the court for approval. On August 31, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. In December 2006, the appellate court overturned the certification of classes in the six focus cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings (the action involving Marvell is not one of the six cases). Because class certification was a condition of the settlement, it was unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval. On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement based upon a stipulation among the parties to the settlement. Plaintiffs filed amended master allegations and amended complaints in the six focus cases. Defendants’ motions to dismiss those new complaints were denied in part and granted in part. Plaintiffs have also moved for class certification in the six focus cases, which the defendants in those cases have opposed.

 

IPO Securities Litigation.  On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of our initial public offering (“IPO”) on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit, which did not name us or any of our officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received “excessive” and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful “tie-in” agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to our IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants us and two of our officers, one of whom is also a director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. These two actions have been consolidated and coordinated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers across the United States. Defendants in the coordinated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, thus allowing the case to proceed against us and the underwriters. Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs. In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants, including us, was submitted to the court for approval. On August 31, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. In December 2006, the appellate court overturned the certification of classes in the six focus cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings (the action involving us is not one of the six cases). Because class certification was a condition of the settlement, it was unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval. On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement based upon a stipulation among the parties to the settlement. Plaintiffs have filed amended master allegations and amended complaints in the six focus cases and have moved for class certification. Defendants’ motions to dismiss those new complaints were denied in part and granted in part. Plaintiffs have also moved for class certification in the six focus cases, which the defendants in those cases have opposed.

 

IPO Securities Litigation.  On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of our initial public offering, or IPO, on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit, which did not name Marvell or any of our officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received “excessive” and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful “tie-in” agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to our IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants Marvell and two of our officers, one of whom is also a director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial complaint in which we were not named as a defendant, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. These two actions relating to our IPO have been consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers across the United States. Defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, thus allowing the case to proceed against the underwriters and us as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs. In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants, including us, was submitted to the court for approval.  On August 31, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. In December 2006, the appellate court overturned the certification of classes in the six test cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings.  Because class certification was a condition of the settlement, it was unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval.  On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement based upon a stipulation among the parties to the settlement.  Plaintiffs have filed amended master allegations and amended complaints in the six focus cases and have moved for class certification.  On December 21, 2007, responsive briefs are due.  On February 15, 2008, reply briefs are due.

IPO Securities Litigation.  On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of our initial public offering, or IPO, on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit, which did not name Marvell or any of our officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received “excessive” and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful “tie-in” agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to our IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants Marvell and two of our officers, one of whom is also a director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial complaint in which we were not named as a defendant, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. These two actions relating to our IPO have been consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers across the United States. Defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, thus allowing the case to proceed against the underwriters and us as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs. On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a settlement among plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their directors and officers, and their insurers has been structured, a part of which provides that the insurers for all issuer defendants would guarantee up to $1 billion to investors who are class members, depending upon plaintiffs’ success against non-settling parties. Our board of directors approved the proposed settlement, which if approved by the court would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissing the case against us and granting releases that extend to all of our officers and directors. Definitive settlement documentation were completed in early June 2004 and first presented to the court on June 14, 2004. On February 15, 2005, the court issued an opinion preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, contingent upon certain modifications being made to one aspect of the proposed settlement — the proposed “bar order.” The court ruled that it had no authority to deviate from the wording of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and that any bar order that may issue should the proposed settlement be finally approved must be limited to the express wording of 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(f)(7)(A).  On May 2, 2005 the issuer defendants and plaintiffs jointly submitted an amendment to the settlement agreement conforming the language of the settlement agreement with the court’s February 15, 2005 ruling regarding the bar order.  The court on August 31, 2005 issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its fairness for April 24, 2006 due to difficulties in mailing the required notice to class members.  A final settlement approval hearing on the proposed issuer settlement was held on April 24, 2006. The court took the matter under submission. Meanwhile the consolidated case against the underwriters proceeded. On October 2004, the district court certified a class. On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that a class could not be certified. The Second Circuit’s holding, while directly affecting only the underwriters, raises some doubt as to whether the settlement class contemplated by the proposed issuer settlement would be approved in its present form. On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs petitioned the Second Circuit for rehearing of the Second Circuit’s decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the petition.  At a status conference on April 23, 2007, the district court suggested that the issuers’ settlement could not be approved in its present form, given the Second Circuit’s ruling.  On June 25, 2007, a stipulation terminating the settlement was filed.  On September 27, 2007, Plaintiffs will file their opening brief on the motion to certify the classes. On December 21, 2007, responsive briefs are due.  On February 15, 2008, reply briefs are due.

IPO Securities Litigation.  On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of our initial public offering, or IPO, on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit, which did not name Marvell or any of our officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received “excessive” and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful “tie-in” agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to our IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three

38

---

underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants Marvell and two of our officers, one of whom is also a director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial complaint in which we were not named as a defendant, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. These two actions relating to our IPO have been consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers across the United States. Defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, thus allowing the case to proceed against the underwriters and us as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs. On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a settlement among plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their directors and officers, and their insurers has been structured, a part of which provides that the insurers for all issuer defendants would guarantee up to $1 billion to investors who are class members, depending upon plaintiffs’ success against non-settling parties. Our board of directors has approved the proposed settlement, which if approved by the court would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissing the case against us and granting releases that extend to all of our officers and directors. Definitive settlement documentation was completed in early June 2004 and first presented to the court on June 14, 2004. On February 15, 2005, the court issued an opinion preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, contingent upon certain modifications being made to one aspect of the proposed settlement — the proposed “bar order.” The court ruled that it had no authority to deviate from the wording of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and that any bar order that may issue should the proposed settlement be finally approved must be limited to the express wording of 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(f)(7)(A).  On May 2, 2005 the issuer defendants and plaintiffs jointly submitted an amendment to the settlement agreement conforming the language of the settlement agreement with the court’s February 15, 2005 ruling regarding the bar order.  The court on August 31, 2005 issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its fairness for April 24, 2006 due to difficulties in mailing the required notice to class members.  A final settlement approval hearing on the proposed issuer settlement was held on April 24, 2006. The court took the matter under submission. Meanwhile the consolidated case against the underwriters has proceeded. On October 2004, the district court certified a class. On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that a class could not be certified. The Second Circuit’s holding, while directly affecting only the underwriters, raises some doubt as to whether the settlement class contemplated by the proposed issuer settlement would be approved in its present form. On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs petitioned the Second Circuit for rehearing of the Second Circuit’s decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the petition.  At a status conference on April 23, 2007, the district court suggested that the issuers’ settlement could not be approved in its present form, given the Second Circuit’s ruling.  While not yet ruling on the matter, the district court has suggested that the parties will likely withdraw and seek to reformulate the current settlement in light of the Second Circuit ruling.

IPO Securities Litigation.  On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of our initial public offering, or IPO, on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit, which did not name Marvell or any of our officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received “excessive” and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful “tie-in” agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to our IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants Marvell and two of our officers, one of whom is also a director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial complaint in which we were not named as a defendant, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. These two actions relating to our IPO have been consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers across the United States. Defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, thus allowing the case to proceed against the underwriters and us as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by agreement with

64

---

plaintiffs. On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a settlement among plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their directors and officers, and their insurers has been structured, a part of which provides that the insurers for all issuer defendants would guarantee up to $1 billion to investors who are class members, depending upon plaintiffs’ success against non-settling parties. Our board of directors has approved the proposed settlement, which if approved by the court would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissing the case against us and granting releases that extend to all of our officers and directors. Definitive settlement documentation was completed in early June 2004 and first presented to the court on June 14, 2004. On February 15, 2005, the court issued an opinion preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, contingent upon certain modifications being made to one aspect of the proposed settlement — the proposed “bar order.” The court ruled that it had no authority to deviate from the wording of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and that any bar order that may issue should the proposed settlement be finally approved must be limited to the express wording of 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(f)(7)(A).  On May 2, 2005 the issuer defendants and plaintiffs jointly submitted an amendment to the settlement agreement conforming the language of the settlement agreement with the court’s February 15, 2005 ruling regarding the bar order.  The court on August 31, 2005 issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its fairness for April 24, 2006 due to difficulties in mailing the required notice to class members.  A final settlement approval hearing on the proposed issuer settlement was held on April 24, 2006. The court took the matter under submission. Meanwhile the consolidated case against the underwriters has proceeded. On October 2004, the district court certified a class. On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that a class could not be certified. The Second Circuit’s holding, while directly affecting only the underwriters, raises some doubt as to whether the settlement class contemplated by the proposed issuer settlement would be approved in its present form. On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs petitioned the Second Circuit for rehearing of the Second Circuit’s decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the petition.  At a status conference on April 23, 2007, the district court suggested that the issuers’ settlement could not be approved in its present form, given the Second Circuit’s ruling.  While not yet ruling on the matter, the district court has suggested that the parties will likely withdraw and seek to reformulate the current settlement in light of the Second Circuit ruling.

IPO Securities Litigation.  On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of our initial public offering, or IPO, on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit, which did not name Marvell or any of our officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received “excessive” and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful “tie-in” agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to our IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants Marvell and two of our officers, one of whom is also a director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial complaint in which we were not named as a defendant, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. These two actions relating to our IPO have been consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers across the United States. Defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, thus allowing the case to proceed against the underwriters and us as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities

67

---

Exchange Act of 1934. Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs. On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a settlement among plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their directors and officers, and their insurers has been structured, a part of which provides that the insurers for all issuer defendants would guarantee up to $1 billion to investors who are class members, depending upon plaintiffs’ success against non-settling parties. Our board of directors has approved the proposed settlement, which if approved by the court would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissing the case against us and granting releases that extend to all of our officers and directors. Definitive settlement documentation was completed in early June 2004 and first presented to the court on June 14, 2004. On February 15, 2005, the court issued an opinion preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, contingent upon certain modifications being made to one aspect of the proposed settlement — the proposed “bar order.” The court ruled that it had no authority to deviate from the wording of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and that any bar order that may issue should the proposed settlement be finally approved must be limited to the express wording of 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(f)(7)(A).  On May 2, 2005 the issuer defendants and plaintiffs jointly submitted an amendment to the settlement agreement conforming the language of the settlement agreement with the court’s February 15, 2005 ruling regarding the bar order.  The court on August 31, 2005 issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its fairness for April 24, 2006 due to difficulties in mailing the required notice to class members.  A final settlement approval hearing on the proposed issuer settlement was held on April 24, 2006. The court took the matter under submission. Meanwhile the consolidated case against the underwriters has proceeded. On October 2004, the district court certified a class. On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that a class could not be certified. The Second Circuit’s holding, while directly affecting only the underwriters, raises some doubt as to whether the settlement class contemplated by the proposed issuer settlement would be approved in its present form. On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs petitioned the Second Circuit for rehearing of the Second Circuit’s decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the petition.  At a status conference on April 23, 2007, the district court suggested that the issuers’ settlement could not be approved in its present form, given the Second Circuit’s ruling.  While not yet ruling on the matter, the district court has suggested that the parties will likely withdraw and seek to reformulate the current settlement in light of the Second Circuit ruling.

IPO Securities Litigation.  On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of our initial public offering, or IPO, on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit, which did not name Marvell or any of our officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received “excessive” and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful “tie-in” agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to our IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants Marvell and two of our officers, one of whom is also a director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial complaint in which we were not named as a defendant, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. These two actions relating to our IPO have been consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers across the United States. Defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, thus allowing the case to proceed against the underwriters and us as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by agreement with

66

---

plaintiffs. On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a settlement among plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their directors and officers, and their insurers has been structured, a part of which provides that the insurers for all issuer defendants would guarantee up to $1 billion to investors who are class members, depending upon plaintiffs’ success against non-settling parties. Our board of directors has approved the proposed settlement, which if approved by the court would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissing the case against us and granting releases that extend to all of our officers and directors. Definitive settlement documentation was completed in early June 2004 and first presented to the court on June 14, 2004. On February 15, 2005, the court issued an opinion preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, contingent upon certain modifications being made to one aspect of the proposed settlement — the proposed “bar order.” The court ruled that it had no authority to deviate from the wording of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and that any bar order that may issue should the proposed settlement be finally approved must be limited to the express wording of 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(f)(7)(A).  On May 2, 2005 the issuer defendants and plaintiffs jointly submitted an amendment to the settlement agreement conforming the language of the settlement agreement with the court’s February 15, 2005 ruling regarding the bar order.  The court on August 31, 2005 issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its fairness for April 24, 2006 due to difficulties in mailing the required notice to class members.  A final settlement approval hearing on the proposed issuer settlement was held on April 24, 2006. The court took the matter under submission. Meanwhile the consolidated case against the underwriters has proceeded. On October 2004, the district court certified a class. On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that a class could not be certified. The Second Circuit’s holding, while directly affecting only the underwriters, raises some doubt as to whether the settlement class contemplated by the proposed issuer settlement would be approved in its present form. On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs petitioned the Second Circuit for rehearing of the Second Circuit’s decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the petition.  At a status conference on April 23, 2007, the district court suggested that the issuers’ settlement could not be approved in its present form, given the Second Circuit’s ruling.  While not yet ruling on the matter, the district court has suggested that the parties will likely withdraw and seek to reformulate the current settlement in light of the Second Circuit ruling.

IPO Securities Litigation.   On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of our initial public offering, or IPO, on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit, which did not name Marvell or any of our officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received “excessive” and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful “tie-in” agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to our IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants Marvell and two of our officers, one of whom is also a director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial complaint in which we were not named as a defendant, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. These two actions relating to our IPO have been consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers across the United States. Defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, thus allowing the case to proceed against the underwriters and us as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs. On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a settlement among plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their directors and officers, and their insurers has been structured, a part of which provides that the insurers for all issuer defendants would guarantee up to $1 billion to investors who

143

---

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

are class members, depending upon plaintiffs’ success against non-settling parties. Our board of directors has approved the proposed settlement, which if approved by the court would result in the plaintiffs’ dismissing the case against us and granting releases that extend to all of our officers and directors. Definitive settlement documentation was completed in early June 2004 and first presented to the court on June 14, 2004. On February 15, 2005, the court issued an opinion preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, contingent upon certain modifications being made to one aspect of the proposed settlement — the proposed “bar order.” The court ruled that it had no authority to deviate from the wording of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and that any bar order that may issue should the proposed settlement be finally approved must be limited to the express wording of 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(f)(7)(A). On May 2, 2005 the issuer defendants and plaintiffs jointly submitted an amendment to the settlement agreement conforming the language of the settlement agreement with the court’s February 15, 2005 ruling regarding the bar order. The court on August 31, 2005 issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its fairness for April 24, 2006 due to difficulties in mailing the required notice to class members. A final settlement approval hearing on the proposed issuer settlement was held on April 24, 2006. The court took the matter under submission. Meanwhile the consolidated case against the underwriters has proceeded. On October 2004, the district court certified a class. On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that a class could not be certified. The Second Circuit’s holding, while directly affecting only the underwriters, raises some doubt as to whether the settlement class contemplated by the proposed issuer settlement would be approved in its present form. On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs petitioned the Second Circuit for rehearing of the Second Circuit’s decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the petition. At a status conference on April 23, 2007, the district court suggested that the issuers’ settlement could not be approved in its present form, given the Second Circuit’s ruling. While not yet ruling on the matter, the district court has suggested that the parties will likely withdraw and seek to reformulate the current settlement in light of the Second Circuit ruling.