Marvell Technology Group (MRVL)

SEC and United States Attorney Inquiries.  In July 2006, the Company received a letter of informal inquiry from the SEC requesting certain documents relating to the Company’s stock option grants and practices. The Company also received a grand jury subpoena from the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting substantially similar documents. On April 20, 2007, the Company was informed that the SEC was conducting a formal investigation into this matter. On June 8, 2007 and July 3, 2007, the Company received document subpoenas from the SEC. On October 11, 2007, the Company received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the SEC. Weili Dai, Vice President of Sales for Communications and Consumer Business of Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (“MSI”), who is not an officer or director of the Company, also received a “Wells” notice. The SEC staff also advised the Company that it is not at this time recommending enforcement action against any of the Company’s current officers or directors. The “Wells” notices indicated that the staff intended to recommend to the staff of the SEC that it bring civil actions against the recipients for injunctive relief and civil monetary penalties. The Company responded in writing to the “Wells Notice” and sought to reach a resolution of this matter before any action was filed.

 

On May 8, 2008, the Company announced that it had reached an agreement with the SEC to settle this matter.  Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, the Company agreed to settle the charges by consenting to a permanent injunction against any future violations of various provisions of the federal securities laws. The Company also agreed to pay a civil penalty of $10 million in connection with the settlement.  On May 8, 2008, the SEC filed a complaint captioned SEC v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., et al., Case No. CV-08-2367-HRL, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The Company’s consent to entry of final judgment was also filed on May 8, 2008.  In a related agreement, Ms. Dai also entered into a settlement with the SEC.  Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, Ms. Dai consented to a permanent injunction against any future violations of various provisions of the federal securities laws, agreed not to serve as a director or officer of a public company for a period of five years, and agreed to pay a civil penalty of $500,000.   The Court entered the final judgment against Ms. Dai on June 16, 2008 and against the Company on July 1, 2008.  The Company accrued the $10 million civil penalty in the first quarter of fiscal 2009 and paid it to the SEC on July 8, 2008.

 

This settlement concludes the SEC’s formal investigation of the Company with respect to the Company’s historic stock option granting practices.

 

21

SEC and United States Attorney Inquiries.  In July 2006, we received a letter of informal inquiry from the SEC requesting certain documents relating to our stock option grants and practices. We also received a grand jury subpoena from the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting substantially similar documents. On April 20, 2007, we were informed that the SEC was conducting a formal investigation into this matter. On June 8, 2007 and July 3, 2007, we received document subpoenas from the SEC. On October 11, 2007, we received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the SEC. Weili Dai, Vice President of Sales for Communications and Consumer Business of MSI, who is not an officer or director of us, also received a “Wells” notice. The SEC staff also advised us that it is not at this time recommending enforcement action against any of our current officers or directors. The “Wells” notices indicated that the staff intended to recommend to the staff of the SEC that it bring civil actions against the recipients for injunctive relief and civil monetary penalties. We responded in writing to the “Wells Notice” and sought to reach a resolution of this matter before any action was filed.

 

On May 8, 2008, we announced that we had reached an agreement with the SEC to settle this matter.  Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, we agreed to settle the charges by consenting to a permanent injunction against any future violations of various provisions of the federal securities laws. We also agreed to pay a civil penalty of $10 million in connection with the settlement.  On May 8, 2008, the SEC filed a complaint captioned SEC v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., et al., Case No. CV-08-2367-HRL, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  Our consent to entry of final judgment was also filed on May 8, 2008.  In a related agreement, Ms. Dai also entered into a settlement with the SEC.  Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, Ms. Dai consented to a permanent injunction against any future violations of various provisions of the federal securities laws, agreed not to serve as a director or officer of a public company for a period of five years, and agreed to pay a civil penalty of $500,000.   The Court entered the final judgment against Ms. Dai on June 16, 2008 and against us on July 1, 2008.  The Company accrued the $10 million civil penalty in the first quarter of fiscal 2009 and paid it to the SEC on July 8, 2008.

 

This settlement concludes the SEC’s formal investigation of us with respect to our historic stock option granting practices.

 

SEC and United States Attorney Inquiries.  In July 2006, we received a letter of informal inquiry from the SEC requesting certain documents relating to our stock option grants and practices. We also received a grand jury subpoena from the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting substantially similar documents. On April 20, 2007, we were informed that the SEC was conducting a formal investigation into this matter. On June 8, 2007 and July 3, 2007, we received

 

42

SEC and United States Attorney Inquiries.  In July 2006, we received a letter of informal inquiry from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requesting certain documents relating to our stock option grants and practices.   We also received a grand jury subpoena from the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting substantially similar documents.  On April 20, 2007, we were informed that the SEC is now conducting a formal investigation into this matter.  On June 8, 2007, we received a document subpoena from the SEC.  On October 11, 2007, we received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the SEC.  Weili Dai, Director of Strategic Marketing and Business Development and former Chief Operating Officer, who is not an officer or director of Marvell, also received a notice. The staff also advised us that it is not at this time recommending enforcement action against any current officers or directors of Marvell.  The notices indicate that the staff intends to recommend to the Commission that it bring civil actions against the recipients for injunctive relief and civil monetary penalties. As we have previously disclosed, we have the opportunity to respond in writing to the “Wells Notice” and/or reach a resolution of this matter before any action is filed.  We have submitted a written response to the “Wells Notice” and are awaiting the Commission’s response to our submission.

 

We have cooperated with the SEC and the United States Attorney regarding these matters, and intend to continue to do so.  We cannot predict the outcome of these investigations.

 

SEC and United States Attorney Inquiries.  In July 2006, we received a letter of informal inquiry from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requesting certain documents relating to our stock option grants and practices.  We also received a grand jury subpoena from the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting substantially similar documents.  On April 20, 2007, we were informed that the SEC is now conducting a formal investigation in this matter.  On June 8, 2007 and July 3, 2007, we received document subpoenas from the SEC.  We have cooperated with the SEC and the United States Attorney regarding these matters and intend to continue to do so.  We cannot predict the outcome of these investigations.

SEC and United States Attorney Inquiries.  In July 2006, we received a letter of informal inquiry from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requesting certain documents relating to our stock option grants and practices.  We also received a grand jury subpoena from the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting substantially similar documents.  On April 20, 2007, we were informed that the SEC is now conducting a formal investigation in this matter.  On June 8, 2007, we received a document subpoena from the SEC.  We have cooperated with the SEC and the United States Attorney regarding these matters and intend to continue to do so.  We cannot predict the outcome of these investigations.

SEC and United States Attorney Inquiries.  In July 2006, we received a letter of informal inquiry from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requesting certain documents relating to our stock option grants and practices.   We also received a grand jury subpoena from the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting substantially similar documents.  On April 20, 2007, we were informed that the SEC is now conducting a formal investigation in this matter. On June 8, 2007, we received a document subpoena from the SEC. We have cooperated with the SEC and the United States Attorney regarding these matters and intend to continue to do so.  We cannot predict the outcome of these investigations.

SEC and United States Attorney Inquiries.  In July 2006, we received a letter of informal inquiry from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requesting certain documents relating to our stock option grants and practices.   We also received a grand jury subpoena from the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting substantially similar documents.  On April 20, 2007, we were informed that the SEC is now conducting a formal investigation in this matter. On June 8, 2007, we received a document subpoena from the SEC.  We have cooperated with the SEC and the United States Attorney regarding these matters and intend to continue to do so.  We cannot predict the outcome of these investigations.

SEC and United States Attorney Inquiries.  In July 2006, we received a letter of informal inquiry from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requesting certain documents relating to our stock option grants and practices.   We also received a grand jury subpoena from the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting substantially similar documents.  On April 20, 2007, we were informed that the SEC is now conducting a formal investigation in this matter. On June 8, 2007, we received a document subpoena from the SEC.  We have cooperated with the SEC and the United States Attorney regarding these matters and intend to continue to do so.  We cannot predict the outcome of these investigations.

SEC and United States Attorney Inquiries.   In July 2006, the Company received a letter of informal inquiry from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requesting certain documents relating to the Company’s stock option grants and practices. The Company also received a grand jury subpoena from the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California requesting substantially similar documents. On April 20, 2007, the Company was informed that the SEC is now conducting a formal investigation in this matter. On June 8, 2007, the Company received a document subpoena from the SEC. The Company has cooperated with the SEC and the United States Attorney regarding these matters and intends to continue to do so. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these investigations.