SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Silicon Motion Inc. (SIMO)
SIMO 88.87+1.5%Nov 28 12:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: Elroy9/1/2023 3:56:54 PM
   of 2976
 
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP File a Securities Class Action Complaint Against MaxLinear, Inc.
BusinessWire
3:43 PM ET
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP ("Entwistle & Cappucci") and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") today announced that their ongoing investigation has led to the filing of a class action complaint against MaxLinear, Inc. ("MaxLinear") and certain of its senior executives on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of Silicon Motion Technology Corporation (NASDAQ: SIMO) ("Silicon Motion") from June 6, 2023 through July 26, 2023, inclusive (the "Class"). The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and is captioned: Water Island Event-Driven Fund v. MaxLinear, Inc., No. 23-cv-01607 (S.D. Cal.).

The action is based upon the defendants' allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts concerning MaxLinear's ability to timely close a business combination with Silicon Motion - a combination that was ultimately abandoned (the "Merger"). Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (i) MaxLinear had decided it would not consummate the Merger because the economic circumstances surrounding the Merger had materially changed, including a material downturn in the semiconductor industry and rising interest rates; (ii) MaxLinear had determined to unilaterally terminate the Merger in the event the Merger was approved by China's State Administration for Market Regulation ("SAMR"); (iii) MaxLinear intended to argue that certain conditions in Article 6 of the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") had not been satisfied as required by May 5, 2023 (i.e., before the class period) as a basis to terminate the Merger; and (iv) as a result, defendants had materially misrepresented the viability of the Merger, the purported benefits of the Merger and the likelihood that the Merger would be consummated.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext