Hayes v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp. et al

Filing 68

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 67 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Defendants' Time to Respond to Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint filed by R. Douglas Norby, Nader Tavakoli, Ilbok Lee, Magnachip Semiconductor Corp. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on November 26, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JONES DAY
John C. Tang (SBN 212371)
Kelsey Israel-Trummel (SBN 282272)
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
Daniel J. Kramer*
Jacqueline P. Rubin*
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
- and Alex Young K. Oh*
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

19

Attorneys for Defendants
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.,
R. Douglas Norby, Ilbok Lee, and
Nader Tavakoli
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

KEITH THOMAS and RICHARD HAYES,

17
18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs,
v.
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., SANG
PARK, TAE YOUNG HWANG, MARGARET
SAKAI, R. DOUGLAS NORBY, ILBOK LEE,
NADER TAVAKOLI, RANDAL KLEIN,
MICHAEL ELKINS, and AVENUE CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT II, L.P.,

CASE NO.: 3:14-cv-01160-JST
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS'
TIME TO RESPOND TO
CORRECTED AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT

Defendants.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO
CORRECTED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.
3:14-cv-01160-JST

1

WHEREAS, plaintiff Richard Hayes filed a purported class action Complaint for

2

Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”) against defendants MagnaChip

3

Semiconductor Corp. (“MagnaChip”), Sang Park, Margaret Sakai, and Tae Young Hwang in the

4

above-captioned action on March 12, 2014;

5

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Stipulation and Order Regarding Deadline for

6

Amended Complaint so ordered on July 16, 2014, plaintiffs Keith Thomas and Richard Hayes

7

(“Plaintiffs”) filed a purported class action Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal

8

Securities Laws against defendants MagnaChip, Sang Park, Margaret Sakai, Tae Young Hwang,

9

Avenue Capital Management II, L.P., R. Douglas Norby, Ilbok Lee, Nader Tavakoli, Randal

10

Klein, and Michael Elkins (collectively, “Defendants”) in the above-captioned matter on

11

September 30, 2014;

12

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a purported class action Corrected Amended

13

Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Corrected Amended Complaint”)

14

against Defendants on October 1, 2014.

15

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Stipulation and Order Extending Defendants’ Time

16

to Respond to Class Action Complaint and Continuing Case Management Conference and

17

Hearing on Motion to Approve Lead Plaintiff so ordered on May 23, 2014, the parties agreed

18

that defendants named in the Complaint shall have sixty (60) days following service to move or

19

answer in response to the Corrected Amended Complaint;

20

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Stipulation and Order Extending Defendants’ Time

21

to Respond to Corrected Class Action Complaint so ordered on October 22, 2014, the parties

22

agreed (i) to extend Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the Corrected Amended

23

Complaint to December 29, 2014 and (ii) to permit Plaintiffs an opportunity to further amend

24

their complaint if MagnaChip restates its financial statements on or before December 29, 2014;

25

WHEREAS, in a Form 12b-25 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange

26

Commission on November 12, 2014, MagnaChip stated that, “[s]ubject to management’s

27

completion of the restated financial statements and related disclosures for the restatement periods

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO
CORRECTED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
-2MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.
3:14-cv-01160-JST

1

as well as the reviews and audit to be conducted by Samil PwC, the Company currently

2

anticipates filing its 2013 Form 10-K by January 30, 2015”;
WHEREAS, the undersigned counsel reasonably expect that Plaintiffs will seek to

3
4

file a further amended complaint following such restatement;

5

WHEREAS, to avoid unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources and effort by

6

the parties and the Court, the undersigned counsel have agreed: (i) to extend Defendants’ time to

7

answer or otherwise respond to the Corrected Amended Complaint to February 27, 2015 and (ii)

8

to afford Plaintiffs an opportunity to further amend their complaint if MagnaChip restates its

9

financial statements before February 27, 2015;

10

WHEREAS, the parties have previously requested three extensions of time;

11

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by the undersigned

12
13

counsel as follows:
1.

Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the Corrected Amended

14

Complaint is extended until February 27, 2015. If any Defendant files a motion to dismiss the

15

Corrected Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs shall have sixty (60) days to respond to the motion(s),

16

and Defendants shall have thirty (30) days to file their reply brief(s).

17

2.

If MagnaChip restates its financial statements on or before February 27, 2015,

18

however, Defendants will not be required to answer or otherwise respond to the Corrected

19

Amended Complaint by February 27, 2015. Under such circumstances, Plaintiffs shall have

20

thirty (30) days from the date on which the restatement is filed with the U.S. Securities and

21

Exchange Commission to file and serve a further amended complaint. If Plaintiffs file and serve

22

a further amended complaint following a restatement by MagnaChip: (i) Defendants shall have

23

sixty (60) days following service to move or answer in response to that amended complaint; and

24

(ii) if any Defendant files a motion to dismiss that amended complaint, Plaintiffs shall have sixty

25

(60) days to respond to the motion(s), and Defendants shall have thirty (30) days to file their

26

reply brief(s). If Plaintiffs do not file and serve a further amended complaint following a

27

restatement by MagnaChip: (i) Defendants shall have sixty (60) days following Plaintiffs’

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO
CORRECTED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
-3MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.
3:14-cv-01160-JST

1

deadline for filing the further amended complaint to answer or otherwise respond to the

2

Corrected Amended Complaint; and (ii) if any Defendant files a motion to dismiss the Corrected

3

Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs shall have sixty (60) days to respond to the motion(s), and

4

Defendants shall have thirty (30) days to file their reply brief(s).

5

3.

Agreement to this Stipulation by the undersigned defendants’ counsel is without

6

prejudice to and without waiver of any of those defendants’ defenses, objections, or arguments in

7

this matter or any other matter.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Dated: November 25, 2014
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
By: /s/ Jacqueline P. Rubin _________________
Daniel J. Kramer*
Jacqueline P. Rubin*
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
- and Alex Young K. Oh*
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
*
Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Defendants MagnaChip
Semiconductor Corp., R. Douglas Norby,
Ilbok Lee, and Nader Tavakoli

25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO
CORRECTED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
-4MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.
3:14-cv-01160-JST

1
2

- and -

3

JONES DAY
John C. Tang
Kelsey Israel-Trummel
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9

Attorneys for Defendant
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO
CORRECTED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
-5MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.
3:14-cv-01160-JST

1

I, Jacqueline P. Rubin, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO

3

RESPOND TO CORRECTED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. In compliance with

4

Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that the signatories below have concurred in this filing.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Dated: November 25, 2014
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
FELD LLP
One Bryant Park
Bank of America Tower
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
By: /s/ Christopher M. Egleson _____________
Michael A Asaro*
Christopher M. Egleson
Steven F. Reich*
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
*
Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Defendants Avenue
Capital Management II, Randal Klein,
and Michael Elkins
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By:

/s/ Marc I. Gross
Marc I. Gross
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Michael Wernke
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
- and -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO
CORRECTED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
-6MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.
3:14-cv-01160-JST

1

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Lionel Z. Glancy
Michael Goldberg
Robert V. Prongay
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

- and -

9

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Laurence Rosen
355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
- and Phillip Kim
275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Keith Thomas and Richard Hayes

18
19
20

R NIA

J u d ge

ER

H

28

RT

27

_______________________________________
Honorable Jon S. Tigar
United StatesJDistrictTigar
on S. Judge

NO

26

November 26, 2014
Dated: _____________________________

A

25

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

FO

24

LI

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

23

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

22

S

21

N

F

C

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO
D IS T IC T O
R
CORRECTED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
-7MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp.
3:14-cv-01160-JST