Shareholder Derivative Litigation. for Marvell_Technology

Send us Feedback

Marvell Technology Group (MRVL)

	SUMMARY

	BULLS

	BEARS

	TOPICS

	DATA CENTRAL

	STOCK CHART

	SEC FILINGS

	BALANCE

	INCOME

	CASH FLOW

MRVL » Topics » Shareholder Derivative Litigation.

This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Jun 11, 2009.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On May 21, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. A hearing to determine whether the court should issue an order finally approving the proposed settlement has been scheduled for July 17, 2009.

This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Dec 11, 2008.

On February 12, 2007, a new purported derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. As in In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation, this lawsuit names the Company as a nominal defendant and a number of the Company’s current and former directors and officers as defendants. It seeks to recover damages purportedly sustained by the Company in connection with its option granting processes, and seeks certain corporate governance and internal control changes. On May 1, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating this lawsuit with In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd.

Table of Contents

This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Sep 10, 2008.

On February 12, 2007, a new purported derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. As in In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation, this lawsuit names us as a nominal defendant and a number of our current and former directors and officers as defendants. It seeks to recover damages purportedly sustained by us in connection with our option granting processes, and seeks certain corporate governance and internal control changes. On May 1, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating this lawsuit with In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation.

On May 29, 2007, the Court entered an order staying discovery in this matter pending resolution of our motion to dismiss.

On January 25, 2008, the Court entered a stipulated order staying proceedings so that the parties could finalize a settlement that would resolve the actions. On or about March 5, 2008, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding that tentatively settles and resolves the actions. The terms of the memorandum of understanding include certain corporate governance enhancements and an agreement by us to pay up to $16 million in plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, an amount less than the $24.5 million that we received from a settlement with our directors’ and officers’ liability insurers. This tentative settlement of the consolidated derivative actions requires court approval before it becomes final. We accrued the $16 million settlement amount in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008. We anticipate that the parties will finalize and submit formal settlement documentation to the court in the next few months for both

Table of Contents

preliminary and final approval, at which time payment of the settlement amount will be made. We recorded the insurance settlement amount as restricted cash at the time it was received in the first quarter of fiscal 2009.

This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Jun 6, 2008.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation. Between June 22, 2006 and August 2, 2006, three purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Each of these lawsuits names us as a nominal defendant and a number of our current and former directors and officers as defendants. Each lawsuit seeks to recover damages purportedly sustained by us in connection with our option granting processes, and seeks certain corporate governance and internal control changes. Pursuant to orders of the court dated August 17 and October 17, 2006, the three actions were consolidated as a single action, entitled In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation. The plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint on November 1, 2006. On January 16, 2007, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for lack of standing or, in the alternative, stay proceedings. On February 12, 2007, a new purported derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Like In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation, this lawsuit names us as a nominal defendant and a number of our current and former directors and officers as defendants. It seeks to recover damages purportedly sustained by us in connection with our option granting processes, and seeks certain corporate governance and internal control changes. On May 1, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating this lawsuit with In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation.

On May 29, 2007, the Court entered an order staying discovery in this matter pending resolution of our motion to dismiss.

On January 25, 2008, the Court entered a stipulated order staying proceedings so that the parties could finalize a settlement that would resolve the actions. On or about March 5, 2008, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding that tentatively settles and resolves the actions. The terms of the memorandum of understanding include certain corporate governance enhancements and an agreement by us to pay up to $16 million in plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, an amount less than the $24.5 million that we received from a recent settlement with our directors’ and officers’ liability insurers. This tentative settlement of the consolidated derivative actions requires court approval before it becomes final. We anticipate that the parties will finalize and submit formal settlement documentation to the court in the next few months for both preliminary and final approval.

This excerpt taken from the MRVL 10-Q filed Dec 6, 2007.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation. Between July 7, 2006 and August 2, 2006, three purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Each of these lawsuits names us as a nominal defendant and a number of our current and former directors and officers as defendants. Each lawsuit seeks to recover damages purportedly sustained by us in connection with our option granting processes, and seeks certain corporate governance and internal control changes. Pursuant to orders of the court dated August 17 and October 17, 2006, the three actions were consolidated as a single action, entitled In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation. The plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint on November 1, 2006. On January 16, 2007, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for lack of standing or, in the alternative, stay proceedings. Pursuant to stipulations among the parties and orders of the court, our motion is currently scheduled to be heard on March 13, 2008.

On February 12, 2007, a new purported derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Like In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation, this lawsuit names us as a nominal defendant and a number of our current and former directors and officers as defendants. It seeks to recover damages purportedly sustained by us in connection with our option granting processes, and seeks certain corporate governance and internal control changes. On May 1, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating this lawsuit with In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation.