Lawsuit Overview
Settlement Overview
You must register to view and download the Settlement Notice and Settlement Proof.
January 4, 2011 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate ordering the dismissal of the appeal.
December 29, 2010 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit approved the order of the notice of withdrawal of the appeal.
December 21, 2010 - The appellant filed a notice of withdrawal of the appeal.
December 1, 2010 - A class member and objector filed a notice of appeal from the order granting lead plaintiffs' motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses.
November 1, 2010 - The court issued an order approving the lead plaintiffs' motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses.
September 29, 2010 - The court approved the settlement, entered the orders approving the plan of allocation and dismissed the action with prejudice.
July 13, 2010 - The court preliminarily approved the settlement.
June 18, 2010 - Parties filed a stipulation of settlement.
July 16, 2009 - The court granted in part and denied in part one of the defendants' motions to dismiss and denied the other defendants' motion to dismiss.
January 30, 2009 - The defendants filed motions to dismiss.
November 14, 2008 - The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
May 15, 2008 - The lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed and all cases were consolidated.
April 7, 2008 - Lead plaintiff motions were filed.
February 6, 2008 -An investor in shares of Maxim Integrated Products Inc (NASDAQ: MXIM) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Maxim Integrated Products Inc over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws between April 29, 2003 and January 17, 2008.
The complaint charges that Maxim Integrated Products Inc and certain of its former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging in improper stock option backdating that caused the issuance of materially false and misleading financial statements during the Class Period.
Specifically, the complaint asserts that on January 17, 2008, the Company announced that it would be restating its financial statements to record between $550 million and $650 million of additional stock-based compensation expense and that its previously issued financial statements could no longer be relied on. As a result of these adverse disclosures, the Company’s stock price has declined 22%.