Bilodeau v. Viegas et al

Filing 36

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE FOR FILING OF CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES THERETO. Plaintiffs shall file a Consolidated Derivative Complaint no later than 90 days after the anticipated restatement is filed with the SEC but in no event late r than July 30, 2010. The deadline for defendants to move, answer or otherwise respond shall be 60 days after the Consolidated Derivative Complaint is filed. In the event defendants move to dismiss, plaintiffs shall filed their opposition no later than 60 days after such motion is filed, and defendants shall file any reply no later than 40 days after such opposition is filed. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 21, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & W E S T LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O

SUSAN S. MUCK (CSB NO. 126930) [e-mail] JENNIFER BRETAN (CSB NO. 233475) [e-mail] FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] JAY L. POMERANTZ (CSB NO. 209869) [e-mail] FELIX S. LEE (CSB NO. 197084) [e-mail] FENWICK & WEST LLP Silicon Valley Center 801 California Street Mountain View, California 94041 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants Victor Viegas, Clent Richardson, Stephen Ambler, Anne DeGheest, John Hodgman, Emily Liggett, Jack Saltich, Robert Van Naarden and Immersion Corporation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 14 15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 Lead Case No. 5:09-cv-04291-MMC 18 19 This Document Relates To: 20 ALL ACTIONS 21 22 (Civil L.R. 7-12) 23 Judge: The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney 24 25 26 27 28
STIP. AND PROP. ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE FOR CONSOLIDATED DERIV. COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES THERETO

IN RE IMMERSION CORPORATION DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

(Derivative Action) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE FOR FILING OF CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES THERETO

LEAD CASE NO. 09-cv-04291-MMC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & W E S T LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O

WHEREAS, on November 17, 2009, this Court issued an order consolidating several related derivative complaints as In re Immersion Corporation Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 9-cv-04291-MMC, approving plaintiffs' selection of Johnson Bottini, LLP and Harwood Feffer LLP as Co-Lead Counsel and Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser as Liaison Counsel, and directing plaintiffs and defendants Victor Viegas, Clent Richardson, Stephen Ambler, Anne DeGheest, John Hodgman, Emily Liggett, Jack Saltich, Robert Van Naarden and nominal defendant Immersion Corporation ("Defendants") (collectively, the "Parties") to meet and confer following the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff and Lead Plaintiff's Counsel in the related In re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-04073-MMC (the "Related Securities Litigation") and submit a mutually agreeable schedule for the filing of a consolidated derivative complaint (the "Consolidated Derivative Complaint") and for the briefing of responses thereto; WHEREAS, on December 21, 2009, this Court issued an order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Plaintiff's Counsel in the Related Securities Litigation and, pursuant to such order, on January 8, 2010, the parties in the Related Securities Litigation filed with the Court a stipulation and proposed order setting the schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint and responses thereto, which stated that Lead Plaintiff shall file a consolidated complaint no later than 60 days after Immersion's anticipated restatement is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), but, absent further Order by the Court, in no event later than June 30, 2010; WHEREAS, on July 1, 2009, Immersion Corporation ("Immersion" or the "Company") announced that the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors was conducting an investigation into certain previous revenue transactions in Immersion's Medical line of business; WHEREAS, on August 10, 2009, Immersion (1) announced that its Audit Committee concluded that a restatement of the Company's previously issued consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008 and auditor's report thereon, and previously issued unaudited financial statements as of and for the periods ended March 31, 2009, December 31, 2008, September 30, 2008, June 30, 2008 and March 31, 2008, would be required ("Anticipated Restatement"); and (2) stated that it was diligently pursuing these matters and
STIPULATION AND PROP. ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE FOR CONSOLIDATED DERIV. COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES THERETO

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1

LEAD CASE NO. 5:09-cv-04291-MMC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FENWICK & W E S T LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O

intended to file its restatement as soon as reasonably practicable after the conclusion of the Audit Committee's investigation and analysis; WHEREAS, on December 1, 2009, Immersion announced that it was working diligently towards filing its restatement with the SEC as soon as practicable; and WHEREAS, because the Parties anticipate that Immersion's Anticipated Restatement may relate to matters underlying and/or relevant to the allegations in this action, the Parties respectfully submit that judicial resources and those of the Parties may be conserved and that judicial efficiency may be achieved if the Consolidated Derivative Complaint were permitted to be filed after the Anticipated Restatement. IT IS ACCORDINGLY STIPULATED, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-12, by and between undersigned counsel for the Parties that: (i) Plaintiffs, through plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, shall file a Consolidated Derivative Complaint no later than 90 days after the Anticipated Restatement is filed with the SEC, but, absent further Order by the Court, in no event later than July 30, 2010. The Consolidated Derivative Complaint will supersede all existing complaints filed in this action, and Defendants are not required to respond to any of the complaints filed in this action prior to the Consolidated Derivative Complaint; (ii) The deadline for Defendants to move, answer or otherwise respond to the Derivative Consolidated Complaint shall be 60 days after the Consolidated Derivative Complaint is filed; (iii) In the event Defendants move to dismiss the Consolidated Derivative Complaint, plaintiffs, through plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, shall file their opposition(s) to Defendants' motion(s) no later than 60 days after such motion(s) are filed; and (iv) In the event Defendants move to dismiss the Consolidated Derivative Complaint, Defendants shall file any replies to plaintiffs' opposition(s) to the motion(s) to dismiss no later than 40 days after such opposition(s) are filed.
STIPULATION AND PROP. ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE FOR CONSOLIDATED DERIV. COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES THERETO

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2

LEAD CASE NO. 5:09-cv-04291-MMC

January 21, 2010