Adaptec 2007 Annual Report Download - page 33

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 33 of the 2007 Adaptec annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 131

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131

Table of Contents
On March 15, 2007, the Company filed three separate motions aimed at having the federal lawsuit dismissed on various legal grounds. One of these motions was
on the basis that plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity facts establishing that a litigation demand on the board of directors of the Company would have been
futile at the time they commenced the derivative lawsuit. On June 20, 2007, the Court heard the motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to plead
demand futility with particularity. The Court ruled on the motion to dismiss on August 22, 2007 finding that the plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint had not met
the pleading burden and gave plaintiffs leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed their Amended Consolidated Complaint on October 2, 2007. While the plaintiffs’
claims are substantially similar, they have reduced the scope of their allegations. The Company filed motions to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint
consistent with its previous motions which were argued before the Court on January 30, 2008. The Court also took argument on a motion to compel the
production of certain documents filed by the plaintiffs December 26, 2007. The Court has not yet ruled on the motions.
ITEM 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
None.
27
Source: PMC SIERRA INC, 10-K, February 22, 2008