1 2 3 4 5 6- 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 HOWARD 13 RICE NEMEROVSK I C " FALK 1 4 RABKN 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GILBERT R . SEROTA (No . 75305) SARAH A . GOOD (No . 148742) CLARA J . SHIN (No . 214809 ) HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKI N A Professional Corporatio n Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4024 Telephone : 415/434-1600 Facsimile : 415/217-5910 Attorneys for Defendan t TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY INC . [Other Counsel Listed On Signature Pages ] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A OAKLAND DIVISION In re TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY INC ., SECURITIES LITIGATION No . C 04 4681 SBA No . 05 CV 04194 S C ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED AND [PROPOSED] ORDE R (Civ . L . R . 3-12 & 7-11 ) ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
45
Embed
GILBERT R. SEROTA (No. 75305) SARAH A. GOOD (No . 148742) …securities.stanford.edu/filings-documents/1032/TRPH04_01/... · 2005-11-04 · Adya Tripathi, And David Eichler (No. 05
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
2
3
4
5
6-
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
HOWARD 13RICE
NEMEROVSK IC" FALK 1 4
RABKN
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GILBERT R. SEROTA (No . 75305)SARAH A. GOOD (No . 148742)CLARA J. SHIN (No . 214809)HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY
FALK & RABKI NA Professional CorporationThree Embarcadero Center, 7th FloorSan Francisco, California 94111-4024Telephone: 415/434-1600Facsimile : 415/217-5910
Attorneys for DefendantTRIPATH TECHNOLOGY INC.
[Other Counsel Listed On Signature Pages ]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A
OAKLAND DIVISION
In re TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY INC .,SECURITIES LITIGATION
No. C 04 4681 SBANo. 05 CV 04194 S C
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TOCONSIDER WHETHER CASESSHOULD BE RELATED AND[PROPOSED] ORDER(Civ. L. R. 3-12 & 7-11 )
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
1 2
HOWARD 13RICE
NEMEROVSK!CA FAALK 14
& I A3KIN
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TO ALL PARTIES AND TBEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD :
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, Defendants Tripath Technology Inc . ,
Adya Tripathi, and David Eichler (collectively, "Defendants") hereby notify the Court that
Langley Partners, L.P. v. Tripath Technology Inc., Adya Tripathi, And David Eichler (No.
05 CV 04194), transferred to this court on October 18, 2005 from the United States District
Court Southern District of New York, is related to other actions earlier filed in this District
and assigned to this Court . This Administrative Motion To Consider Whether Cases Should
Be Related ("Motion") is based upon this Notice and Motion; the [Proposed] Order ; the
accompanying Declaration of Clara J . Shin explaining why a stipulation could not be
obtained; and such further papers and argument as may be submitted to the Court in
connection with the Motion .
A. Titles And Dockets Numbers Of The Related Cases.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, Defendants Tripath Technology Inc . ,
Adya Tripathi, and David Eichler (collectively, "Defendants") hereby notify the Court that
Langley Partners, L.P. v. Tripath Technology Inc ., Adya Tripathi, And David Eichler (No.
05 CV 04194) (hereinafter "Langley Partners, L .P."), transferred to this Court on October
18, 2005 from the United States District Court Southern District of New York, is related to
other actions earlier filed in this District : Abraham Goldberg, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Tripath Technology Inc., Adya Tripathi, And David Eichler
(No . C 04 4681), Marc Cherbonnier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v . Tripath Technology Inc ., Adya Tripathi, And David Eichler (No . C 04 4936),
Navtej S. Bhandari, On Behalf Of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated v . Tripath
Technology Inc ., Adya S. Tripathi, David P. Eichler, And Graham K. Wright (No. C 04
4969), and Frank Oravec, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v .
Tripath Technology Inc ., Adya Tripathi, And David Eichler (No. C . 04 4976), consolidated
into In re Tripath Technology Inc. Securities Litigation (No . C 04 4681) (hereinafter "In re
Tripath Technology Inc."), and assigned to the Honorable Saundra B . Armstrong .
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
HOWARD 13RIC E
NEMERC KC FALK 14M RABKIN
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants therefore request that Langley Partners, L.P. v. Tripath Technology Inc . ,
Adya Tripathi, And David Eichler (No. 05 CV 04194) be assigned to the same Judge of thi s
Court, the Honorable Saundra B . Armstrong, for reasons of fairness, convenience, an d
economy .
B . Relationship Of The Related Cases.
As defined in Local Rule 3-12(a), Langley Partners, L.P. is a related case to In re
Tripath Technology Inc .
First, the two actions involve the same defendants . In Langley Partners, L .P., the
defendants are Tripath Technology Inc . ("Tripath " or the "Company"), Adya Tripathi, and
David Eichler . Similarly, in In re Tripath Technology Inc ., the defendants also are Tripath ,
Adya Tripathi , and David Eichler . '
Second, the two proceedings involve the same property, transactions, events, and
questions of law . In re Tripath Technology Inc . is a consolidated class action alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 . Specifically,
the plaintiffs in In re Tripath Technology Inc . alleged that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding Tripath's financial results for its fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2003, first quarter of fiscal year 2004, and second quarter of fiscal year 2004 .
The plaintiffs alleged that the statements were purportedly false and misleading because the
defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following : (a) that the Company improperly
recognized revenue from sales of products that eventually were returned to the distributor ;
(b) that as a result of this, the Company had to increase its sales return reserve for the third
quarter and had to take a charge of approximately $4 .0-$4.5 million for excess inventory ;
(3) that the Company's financial results were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
'In Navtej S. Bhandari, On Behalf Of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated v . TripathTechnology Inc ., Adya S . Tripathi, David P . Eichler, And Graham K. Wright (No. C 04 4969), oneof the original actions consolidated into In Re Tripath Technology Inc., the plaintiffs also namedGraham Wright as a defendant .
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
HOWARD 13RICE
NEMEROVSKICANADY
FALK 14& KABKIN
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Principles ("GAAP") ; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls ; and (5) that as
a result of the above, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant
times and the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their statements regarding the
Company. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Company announced financial results that
were in violation of GAAP. The plaintiffs further alleged that, as a result of the defendants'
alleged false and misleading statements and failures to disclose, Tripath's securities traded at
artificially inflated prices and members of the class purchased or otherwise acquired Tripath
securities relying upon the integrity of the market price of Tripath's securities and market
information relating to Tripath . The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants acted with
scienter. The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated July 12, 2005, and, on
October 20, 2005, the Court entered the Preliminary Order For Notice And Hearing In
Connection With Settlement Proceedings . The Settlement Fairness Hearing pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) is scheduled to be held before the Court on January
24, 2006 at 1 :00 P.M.
On June 2, 2005, Langley Partners, L .P. ("Langley Partners") brought an action in th e
United States District Court Southern District of New York substantially similar to In re
Tripath Technology Inc except that it seeks individual (not class action) relief (attached
hereto as Exhibit 1 (Langley Partners Complaint)) . As in In re Tripath Technology Inc.,
Langley Partners alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.2 As in In re Tripath Technology Inc., Langley Partners further alleges that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Tripath's financial
results for its fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003, first quarter of fiscal year 2004, and second
quarter of fiscal year 2004 . As in In re Tripath Technology Inc., Langley Partners further
alleges that the statements were purportedly false and misleading because the defendants
failed to disclose or indicate the following : (1) that the Company improperly recognize d
2Langley Partners' additional claims for relief are fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment,rescission, and purported violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act .
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
HOWARD 13RICE
NEMERO\•`SKICANADY 14& KABKIN
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
revenue from sales of products that eventually were returned to the distributor ; (2) that as a
result of this, the Company had to increase its sales return reserve for the third quarter and
had to take a charge of approximately $4 .0-$4.5 million for excess inventory; (3) that the
Company's financial results were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP"); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls ; and (5) that as a result of
the above, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times and
the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their statements regarding the Company . As in
In re Tripath Technology Inc., the plaintiffs also allege that the Company announced
financial results that were in violation of GAAP. As in In re Tripath Technology Inc .,
Langley Partners further alleges that, as a result of the defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements and failures to disclose, Tripath's securities traded at artificially
inflated prices. As in In re Tripath Technology Inc., Langley Partners further alleges that the
defendants acted with scienter . In addition, Langley Partners alleges that the Company
made false and misleading statements about its technology for digital audio amplifiers .
C. Assignment Of The Two Proceedings To A Single Judge Will ConserveJudicial Resources And Promote Efficient Determination Of BothProceedings .
Because of the broadly similar allegations and questions of fact and law raised in thes e
proceedings, there would be burdensome and inappropriate duplication of labor and expense
for the Court and the parties, accompanied by the risk of conflicting processes and results, if
the two actions are conducted before different judges of this Court . Assignment of both
proceedings to a single judge will conserve judicial resources and promote an efficient
determination of the actions . Indeed, Judge Baer of the Southern District of New York
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
HQWMD 13RICE
NEMEROvWa`NADY 14
FAUC& 2ABKIN
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
granted defendants ' motion to transfer based , in part, upon the pendency of In re Tripath
Technology Inc. in this Court (attached hereto as Exhibit 2 (Memorandum & Order Oct . 6, 2005)) .
DATED: November) , 2005 .
DATED : November , 2005 .
GILBERT R. SEROTASARAH A. GOODCLARA J. SHINHOWARD CE NEMEROVSKI CANADY
FAIX & RABKINA Pro e r Mation
By '
A ttorneys for DefendantTRIPATH TECHNOLOGY INC .
SUSAN S. MUCKRACHAEL G . SAMBERGFENWICK & WEST LLPEmbarcadero Center West275 Battery StreetSan Francisco , CA 94111Telephone : 415/875-2300Facsimile: 415 /281-1350
By :
Attorneys for Defendants ADYA S . TRIPATHI andDAVID EICHLER
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [ PROPOSED] ORDER
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
HOWARD 13RICE
NEMEKOVSK ICANADY 14& RAQKN
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
Upon the foregoing Administrative Motion To Consider Whether Cases Should Be
Related, and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that Langley Partners, L.P. v. Tripath
Technology Inc ., Adya Tripathi, And David Eichler (No . 05 CV 04194) (hereinafter
"Langley Partners, L.P."), transferred to this Court on October 18, 2005 from the United
States District Court Southern District of New York, should be related to In re Tripath
Technology Inc . Securities Litigation (No. C 04 4681) and assigned to the Honorable
Saundra B . Armstrong .
IT IS SO ORDERED .
DATED: November _, 2005 .THE HONORABLE SAUNDRA B . ARMSTRONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG E
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
HOWARD 13RICE
NEMEJ Ov5 JCAADY
FALK 14fKABKKIN
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
granted defendants' motion to transfer based, in part, upon the pendency of In re Tripath
Technology Inc. in this Court (attached hereto as Exhibit 2 (Memorandum & Order Oct . 6, 2005)) .
DATED: November2 , 2005 .
DATED : November , 2005 .
GILBERT R . SEROTASARAH A. GOODCLARA J. SHINHOWARD CE NEMEROVSKI CANADY
FAI-Al & RABKINA. Pro i Co ation
By:
A ttorneys for DefendantTRIPATH TECHNOLOGY INC .
SUSAN S. MUCKRACHAEL G . SAMBERGFENWICK & WEST LLPEmbarcadero Center West275 Battery StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111Telephone : 415/875-2300Facsimile : 415/281-135 0
By: 244)2 r? /V14%c ',L
Attorneys for Defendants ADYA S . TRIPATHI andDAVID EICHLER
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [ PROPOSED] ORDER
-5-
EXHIBIT r
10/05/2005 10 :33 FAX 212 805 7901 JUDGE HAROLD BAER JR .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LANGLEY PARTNERS, L.P.,
Plaintiff,
-against
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY, INC .,ADYA TRIPATHI and DAVIDEICHLER,
Defendants .
Hon. HAROLD BAER, JR., District Judge :
05 Civ . 5255
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
By motion dated July 12, 2005, defendants Tripath Technology, Inc ., Adya
Tripathi and David Eichler ("defendant?' or "Tripath") seek to transfer this action to the
Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U,S .C, § 1404(a). The motion is granted .
L BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Langley Partners, L.P ("Langley") filed this action on June 2, 2005,
alleging, inter alia, violations of section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as well as common law fraud and breach of contract, based on defendants'
IJ002/00p3
purported misrepresentations surrounding a restatement of revenues by Tripath . Langley,
an investment partnership based in New York, entered into a stock purchase agreement
with Tripath on August 2, 2004 in which Langley purchased 1,000,000 shares of Tripath
at $2 .00 per share . (Declaration of Jeffrey Thorp, dated August 9, 2005 ("Thorp Dec .")
117-8) . Tripath is a publicly traded corporation based in San Jose, California tha t
designs and markets digital chips for use in consumer products . (Declaration of Jeffrey
Garon, dated July 9, 2005 ("Garon Dec.") ¶ 4; Declaration of Adya Tripathi, dated June
24, 2005 ("Tripathi Dec .") ¶ 2) .
Following Tripath's announcement on October 22, 2004 that reported revenues
for the second quarter of that year might have been inaccurate, four separate securities
fraud class actions (the "California class actions") were filed against Tripath in the
Northern District of California . (Declaration of Sarah Good, dated July 6, 2005 ("Good
1
10/05/2005 10 :34 FAX 212 805 7901 JUDGE HAROLD BAER JR. Q 003/00D,,0
Dec.") ¶ 2) .' On December 22, 2004, the California class actions were consolidate d
before Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong . (Good Dec . ¶ 3) . On July 12, 2005 the parties
to the consolidated California class action fi led a stipulation of settlement. (Pl.'s Reply
Mem, at 10 ). Oral argument on the California plaintiffs ' motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement is scheduled to occur on October 25 , 2005. lid .)
H. DISCUSSION
Defendants seek to transfer this action to the Northern District of California wher e
the related class actions are pending. Section 1404(a) provides that, "[fJor the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest ofjustice, a district court may
transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been
brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).2 "Motions for transfer lie within the broad discretion of
the courts and are determined upon notions of convenience and fairness on a case-by-case
basis ." Berman v. Informix Corp ., 30 F. Supp . 2d 653,656 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (internal
quotation omitted) . However, "a court should not disturb a plaintiff's choice of forum
unless the defendants make a clear and convincing showing that the balance of
Tripath's outside auditors and outside counsel who were involved in the p reparation of
the SEC filings at issue in this litigation are located in northern California. (Declaration
1 Adya Tripathi and David Eichler, Tripath's CEO and former CFO respectively, were also named asdefendants in the California class actions .2 The parties do not contest the fact that this action could have been brought in the Northern District ofCalifornia,
2
10/05/2005 10 :34 FAX 212 805 7901 JUDGE HAROLD BAER JR . 0004/00D,AQ
of David Eichler, dated July 19, 2005 ("Eichler Dec .") ¶J 6-7; Garon Dec . 1 7). These
non-partyw itnesses would be outside the subpoena power of this Court . See Berman, 30
F. Supp . 2d at 657 ("availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling
witnesses" factor to be considered in venue transfer) . All of the corporate filings and
press releases at issue in this litigation originated at Tripath's headquarters in San Jose,
and all relevant documents related to Tripath's actions remain there . (Eichler Dec . 7 5 ;
Garon. Dec . 18) .
Courts faced with securities fraud actions have transferred those actions to the
district in which the issuer is located . See In re Stillwater Mining Co . Securities
LIItia ., 02 Civ. 2806, 2003 WL 21087953 (S .D.N.Y. May 12, 2003) (transferring
consolidated securities class action to Montana where issuer was located and alleged false
statements originated) ; In re Nematron Corp .Securities Liter 30 F. Supp. 2d 397
(S.D.N.Y. 1998) (transferring securities fraud class action to Eastern District of Michigan
where issuer was located). Transfer seems especially appropriate where, as here, there
are previously filed actions pending in the defendants' home district. See Berman. 30 F .
Supp. 2d at 655 (transferring securities fraud action to California where consolidated
class action was pending) . While settlement of the consolidated California action appears
imminent, there may be opt out litigation following approval of the settlement . Indeed,
Langley, by virtue of its purchase of Tripath stock, is a member of the putative California
class . See Good Dec . 1 2) . See also MBCP Peerlogic, L .L.C. v. Critical Path. Inc ., 02
Civ. 3310, 2002 WL 31729626, *2 (S .D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002) (approving transfer to district
in which previously filed consolidated action had already settled) .
Plaintiff argues that this action is distinguishable from those cases in which courts
have transferred securities fraud suits to the issuers' home districts . Plaintiff further
argues that this action is distinct in relevant respects from the pending consolidated class
action in California. Principally, plaintiff contends that, since plaintiff purchased Tripath
stock pursuant to a stock purchase agreement that plaintiff executed in New York, the
"center of gravity" of the complaint lies in New York . Plaintiff claims that, since there is
a contract involved, the testimony of plaintiffs officers will be more important than
plaintiffs' testimony in a typical stock fraud case . This argument is unavailing . Although
plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract, the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is
3
10/05/2005 10 :35 FAX 212 805 7901 JUDGE HAROLD BAER JR. Ij005/00po
securities fraud. In fact, Langley's contract claim turns on whether or not there was a
"material change" in Tripath's condition not reflected in Tripath's SEC filings . (Compl .
¶Q 19, 74-48) . Thus, Tripath's ultimate liability will, on either theory, involve the
accuracy of its 2004 financial statements.
Transfer of this action to the Northern District of California is in the interest o f
the efficient administration of justice . Not only are Tripath, its employees, and the
relevant non-party witnesses located there, but there is a closely related consolidated
class action already pending. Thus, defendants have met their burden in demonstrating
that transfer is warranted .
M. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to transfer this action to the
Northern District of California is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed
to close this case and remove it from my docket .
IT IS SO ORDERED .
New York, New York
,'S~er b 2005
3 The elements of plaintiffs breach of contract and securities fraud claims are not identical . For example,to succeed on a fraud theory plaintiff must also prove reliance on defendant's fraudulent statements .Nonetheless, plaintiff's breach of contract claim involves the same alleged misrepresentations that form thecore of plaintiff's claim for securities fraud,
(;ML, Q DVER SHED' 05 v 5 2 5 5Js 44+rPS TY .45-44 dvi owd wo lr* kftm& n wM0. a h«.Yi Mk-M#- nor" w *"9* I fty .rd •«vke mRAJ. 1187REV,
=kv w c p+q~~rs as z;AUt ! by lz +axp! m pftkkd by tort nks 0 CaA TNs tam. MPPMVW by "Juatr~al Cc+if sear d tha t7rtt pct 13taM fn B+ mbK O N 4 NOW b• Us d bw Clark d Colxt for t4 puepQ S cf,figWEB .I aectin "da0*O*A
C.̂spm a Msd&, Esq. At .A Papa R 4nl k Qrsy C•ry US LI1251 Avgttle of ft Anv cii, NY, M0W0 (212) 835.6000
OVAE of ON PM THE U. K. CNu. a ATU IE OMER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AN WRn A $WE'F STATEMIM CA178E) ,.Soctnitici motion tmd*i' 15 USC ;7SW and 28 USC 11331
H;d ViW w a skNtar c:sto bean prwnio ty faad M $DNY at any thna? No? M Y n? 0 A)dtdo PtaVlousty A=krmd . .., . ) ~•.
El I'M OtI RCONrn~T a7N I QP4IGM't aP1 N*IH05{p}) 5TA0R$ATK)NACT❑ tan L Ft40 J(T
R a° °9s P xtx.
WORAc T0
6 4*.T#X*40T3 o061 ,u.1CCAM)N
Acs,afit u~E.a aTATUTEaan*A R74 iiLnv4T.0 $ D e7o T,NGE1s
AM13 90 FR 4 OF
U 701 Ehl7.Ri:T!!C V 971 0a.7iftopAmlY20 Nt0l MA77ONACT"W. PROOCRr' CWL IOCR s Pwo o9otmMo a SWURnYACT 1W 7tm CI °°d APPfiAL OF
FM13 2" LA M
COi "O"D441 VQTNi40 447 EIa' WYM
D dit FVI10M%TO11 A32 BOFT 3X0
Uf SQUALA TO A)W=
❑ 27D iOF P1JIf1123D flflff VINg £
13 #/a H U1JKtACC ooAT)O$$
+10U90 2 tddO W} WyEM C 30
13 slab CCitS11t1o/ulftYof42N 1T TUTEri
6JErl~ U 444 wmtA E ❑ 1$ WATHP0N 4.TY 010* O13 gMTV(RY0240 1U4T!?O LAID ❑ .4m O 0100 CNR FDGM5 Ci so 1v*10*)S & OTHER ACYUNS11 .t" low PROMICT 0550 CPXYJOkTg
fl W IO Y
CH WK IF MS 3S A CLASS ACTION DO V Oti CLAIM TH19 CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PEND*N03 IN S.D.N.Y.?UNDER F - R.C .P . xt IF 80, STATE:
DEMANDS OTHER .
V Wk )IS un y h 0 th~d TA ton #61/ tJURY OFMAND: E1 YES [] HO
JUDGE
NOTE: Please aubmk at the time Mho an uiofanatlon of wtiy c0060 are dwned toloted .
DQCY, P NUMS1=fi
(S REVERSE)
U9f CJJ(z JUJ rj4 ; LO rorJ,jn,~4 FINANCE PAGE 03/32
(PL4CEANXAVONE BOX{ LY} ORIGIN
$k311 c ► 02 R ~.„ 03 04 d [rl5r t. s D& I s [ J7 A .r >4 Dkb~P„r eadtnu staL, court • cfl~•t l~aove►wa iss y t ) t >tEpe son
Axial iWo"aft
ANX IN ONE BOX ONLY) BASIS OF JURI SDICTION IF DfVElivS" MIMICAItC VENSSUPMow
p t U.s. PL 1fFF 0 2 u-s . oEFENomr 0 3 FEDERAL QuEsMN 13 4 DIVERSITY (28 USC 1 ,322,14411(U.S . NOT A PARTY)
C1TIZE NSHIP OF PRINCIPAL. PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)
(Place an (tq le dne box fir Plaintlti said one box tot Defendant}
CRITN OF THS STATE ❑ 1 Di CMZEN ORSUBJECT OFA ❑ 3 O PX*RPQRA=>gW A- M 05 dFORE►GN COUMTRY OF 8USIES3 tNANOTPeRSTATE
CaL-EN OF ANOTHER STATE E12 E3 2 F1CORPORAT 9[ PR1NGIPALRAGE 04 C34 FOREK rt NAT$G?1 06 DaOF 8U81 E$5 w m SPATE
c' ARmFF(S) ADDRESS(ES)AND COUN'fY(IES) (Calendar de 4(A) )t ngtc P*rh+ua. LP.S35 Mwf isoo AwriueNew York. Now York 10022
T Ipsih Tcctmotogy, {sec. Adys Ti pa thi
2i6D O c)wd Pitkwiy c/oTT44%Tccbnvlo&. Inc.Sin Sox, Cohfomia 95131 2559 O'dlvd Po *-V
S Ja c.calftbmia 33131
Davie sicbrc16 Sinai Corporedon440 Wc&t GI1lbmea A uc. Suitc 200Sunny+rnl, CA 94086
t ENDAN7(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWNREPf2ESENTATit)~1 IS HEREBY MADE "T, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE. Wins REASONAt3LE DILIGENCE. TO ASCERTAIN THE
RESIDENCE A)DR .ESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS ;
Cntrx one: THIS ACTION SHOULD 8E ASSIGNED TO: Q WHITE PLAINS (J FOLEY SQUARE(00 NOT check either box it thisa PRISONER PETITION .)
525 5Tripfth Technology, Inc. Adyq Tripathi David Eichler
2560 Orchard Parkway c /Q Tripath Technology ; Itic . c/o Sinnett CorporationSan lose, CA 95131 2560 Orchard Parkway 640 West California Avenue
San Jose, CA 95±3± : Suite 200''Sunnyvale, CA 94086
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and roquired to she upon PL N11FFS ATTORNEY {namaai adores )
Caryn G . Mazin
DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New Yorks New York 10020-110 4
an answer to the compraint which is herewith served upon you, within 30 days after service of thissummons upon you, exclusive of the day of service . If you fall to do so, judgment by default will be taken agairist you forthe relkkf domat•sded in the complaint . You must also file your answer with the Clerk of this-Court within a reasonable periodof fitne after service.
J, MTCf-,M*-ARONCLERK
(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
DATA
v-* . L.~ r . .r u.7u .7•t
Caryrt G. Main (CM 3858)DLA PIPER R[,UDNICK GkAY CARY US LLP1251 Avenue of the AmericasNew York., New York 10020212.835 .6000 1
. .►A tnrneys for Plainti 9 Langley Partners L .P .
UNTIED STATESSOUTHERN DISTRIC
F 1Nf4Nt. ;t
YORK
fnTN ,PAR , LP., 105 %J V
Plaintiff,
TRIPATH TCI:TOLOGY, INC ., A.DYA TRIPAM COMPLAINT
and DAVID EIMER ,
Defendants.
x
VAU± 05/32
F FM
525 5
Plaintiff Langley Partners, L.F. ("Langley"), for its cozyplaint against Tripath Technology
tue. ("Tripatb'), Adya Tripes ("Tripathi") and David Bichier ("Eiehlee) states as follows :
IUSDICTXON AIWA YEN[Th
1 . This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 1 .5
U.S.C. §78aa and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 .
2. Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and 28
U.S.C. § 139l(b). Many of the acts and transactions alleged herein, including the transmission
of materialy false and misleading information, occurred in substantial part in this Judicial
District .
~. L~~~ a r. t f JUJU) i r INr NUL PAGE e6!32
3 . In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this complaint,
defendants, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate co mmerce,
including but not limited to, the United States mails, interstate telephone communications and
the facilities of the national securities exchange.
?ARTLES
4. Plaintiff Langley is a Delaware limited partnership residing in New York that
purchased Tripath securities at artificially inflated prices on August 3, 2004 and that has bee n
damaged thereby.
5. Langley is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant Tripath'is a
Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 2560 Orchard Parkway, S an
lose, California 951 31 . Tripath trades, 'and all relevant times did trade, on the NASDAQ .
6. Langley is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant Tripathi was ,
at all relevant times, Tripath's Cha irman, President and Chief Executive Officer.
7. Langley is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant Eichler was ,
until his departure on September 15, 2004, Tripath's Chief Financial Officer . Defendants
Tripathi and Eichler are collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Individual Defendants ."
8. From at least March 2004 to August 2004, each of the Individual Defendants, as
senior executive officers and/or directors of Tripath, were privy to non-public information
concerning its business, finances, products, markets and present and future business prospects
via access to internal corporate documents, conversations and connections with other corporate
officers and employees, attendance at management and Board of Directors meetings and
committees thereof and via reports and other inform on provided to them in connection
therewith- Because of their possession of such information, the Individual Defendants knew o r
2
. -- --- I iiyr ur% c tIAUL b // J2
recklessly disregarded the fact tb .at-'adverse facts specified herein had not been disclosed to, and
were being concealed from,, the investing public .
9, Because of the Individual Defendants' positions with Tripath, they had access to
the adverse undisclosed information about Tripath's business, operations, operational trends ,
financial statements, markets and present and future business prospects via access to internal
corporate documents (including Tripath's operating plans, budgets and forecasts and reports of
actual operations compared thereto), conversations and connections with other corporate officers
and employees, attendance at management and Board of Directors meetings and committees
thereof and via reports and other information provided to them in connection therewith.
10. It is appropriate to treat the Individual Defendants as a group for pleadin g
purposes and to presume that the false, misleading and incomplete information conveyed in
Tripath's public filings, press releases and other publications as alleged herein are the collective
actions of the narrowly defined group of defendants identified above . Each of the above officers
of Tripath, by virtue of their high-level positions with Tripath, directly participated in the
management of Tripath, was directly involved in the day-to-day operations of Tripath at the
highest levels and was privy to confidential proprietary information concerning Tripath and its
business, operations, growth, financial statements, and financial condition, as alleged herein.
Said defendants were involved in drafting, producing, reviewing and/or disseminating the false
and misleading statements and information, alleged herein, were aware, or recklessly disregarded,
that the false and misleading statements were being issued regarding Tripath, and approved or
ratified these statements, in violation of the federal securities laws .
11 . As officers and controlling persons of a publicly-held company whose securities
were, and are, registered with the SEC pursuant to the Exchange Act, and was traded on the
c ~r v~r Luuv u-r . to r UUUJU04 I- INF)Nl;tHAUL 08132
NASDAQ and governed by the provisions of the federal securities laws, the Individual
Defendants each had a duty to disseminate promptly, accurate and truthful information with
respect to Tripath' s financial condition and performance , growth, operations, financial
statements , business, markets, management, earnings and present and future business prospects,
and to correct any previously-issued statements that had become materially misleading or untrue,
so that the market price of Tripath's publicly-traded securities would be based upon truthful and
accurate information- The Individual Defendants ' misrepresentations and omissions from March
2004 to August 2004 as discussed more fully below violated these specific requirements and
obligations .
12. The Individual Defendants participated in the drafting, preparation, and/or
approval of the various public and shareholder and investor reports and other communications
complained of herein and were aware of, or recklessly disregarded, the misstatements contained
therein and omissions therefrom, and were aware of their materially false and misleading nature.
Because of their Board mnernbership and/or executive and managerial positions with Tripath,
each of the Individual Defendants had access to the adverse undisclosed information abou t
Tripath's financial condition and performance as particularized herein and knew (or recklessl y
disregarded) that these adverse facts rendered the positive representations made by or abou t
Tripath and its business issued or adopted by Tripath materially false and misleading.
13. The Individual Defendants, because of their positions of control and authority as
officers and/or directors of Tripath, were able to and did control the content of the various SEC
filings pertaining to Tniipath from March 2004 to August 2004 . Each Individual Defendant was
provided with copies of the documents alleged herein to be misleading prior to or shortly after
their issuance and/or had the ability and/or opportunity to prevent their issuance or cause them t o
4
v. + v v V f. LJ (JVJVJ t r ltwaivUL PAGE 09132
be corrected. Accordingly, each of the Individual Defendants is responsible for the accuracy of
the public reports and releases detailed herein and is therefore primarily liable for the
representations contained dyerein.
14. Each of the Defendants is liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and cours e
of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Tripath securities by disseminating
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material Adverse facts . The scheme:
(1) deceived the investing public, including Langley, regarding Tripath business, operations,
management and the intrinsic value of Txipath securities; and (2) caused Langley to purchase
Tripath securities at artificially inflated prices .
S TM TIVE ALLEGATIONS
Background
15. Tripath develops and supplies digital amplifiers .
16. In July, 2004, Tripath sought out investors to raise capital through a shel f
registration.
The Purchase Agreement
IT On or about August 2, 2004, Langley and Tripath entered into a stock purchas e
agreement, pursuant to which Langley purchased 1,000,000 shares of Tripath common stock at a
purchase price of $2 per share for a total price paid of $2,000,000 ("Purchase Agreement's} . At
the close of trading on August 2, 2004, Tripath's shares traded at $2 .42 per share . The 1,000,000
shares ofTripath stock were delivered to Langley on August 3, 2004-
18 . The Purchase Agreement acknowledges that in making its investment decision i n
this offering, Langley relied on the Company's public filings as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. In the Purchase Agreement, Langley also consented to receipt of the
Company's Prospectus Supplement, dated August 2, 2004 ("Prospectus Supplement") and the
5
accompanying Prospectus, dated June 1, 2004, including the documents incorporated b y
reference therein. The Prospectus Supplement specifically incorporated by reference Tripath's
10K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, filed on March 9, 2004 ("Form I O K"%,
Tripath's 10Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, filed on April 22, 2004, as amended on
May 21, 2004 (`Form 10Q"), and its Form 8-K., filed on July 22, 2004 ("July Form 8K"}.
19. In Paragraph (d) of the Purchase Agreement, defendant Tripatb made th e
following representations :
(d) Material Cbanges. Since the date of the latest audited financial statementsincluded within the SEC Reports, except as specifically disclosed in theProspectus or a report filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, (i) there has been no event, occurrence or development that has had orthat could reasonably be expected to result in a material adverse effect on theCompany's operations or business prospects, taken as a whole, (ii) the Companyhas not incurred any liabilities (contingent or otherwise) other than (A) tradepayables and accrued expenses incurred in the ordinary course of businessconsistent with past practice and (B) liabilities not required to be reflected in theCompany's financial statements pursuant to GAAP or required to be disclosed infilings made with the Commission, (iii) the Company has not altered its method ofaccounting, (iv) the Company has not declared or made any dividend ordistribution of cash or other property to its stockholders or purchased, redeeme dor made any agreements to ptirohase or redeem any shares of its capital stock an d
(v) the Company has not issued any equity securities to any officer, director oraffiliate, except pursuant to existing Company stock option plans . The Companydoes not have pending before the Commission any request for confidentialtreatment of information.
raise Representations and Omissions Of Material Fact Made By Tripatb.
20. On January 29, 2004, Tripath reported financial results for its fourth quarter an d
fiscal year 2003 in its January form 8K.. Revenue for the fourth quarter ended December 31,
2003 were $4.1 million, an increase of i I% over revenues of $3 .7 million for the third quarter of
fiscal year 2003 and an increase of 41 °% over revenues of $2.9 million for the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2002. Revenues for fiscal year 2003 were $13.9 million, a dcerease of fiscal year 2003
was 33%, compared with 32% for the third quarter of fiscal year 2003 and 23% for the fourth
t'HU . 1i/J2
6
v~" v .Jr LvvsJ ut . 40 t JUOU04 r 11`IF1My t
quarter of fiscal year 2002 . The gross margin for fiscal year 2003 and decreased by 23% from
$3.5 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2002. Operating expenses for fiscal year2003
were $11.4 million, a decrease of 34% from operating expenses of $17 .2 million for fiscal year
2002.
21 . The Form 1 OK filed on March 9, 2004 was signed by the 3udividual Defendants
and reaffirmed Tripath's previously announced financial results . Additionally, the Form I OK
included the following clean, audit opinion by Tripath's accountants BOO Seidman, L.LP,
Jn our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above presentfairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Tripath Technology Inc .
and its subsidiary at December 31, 2 003 and the results of their operations andtheir cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principlesgenerally accepted in the United States of.AAmerica .
22. The Form IO-K also represented that Tripath had "Disclosure Controls and
Internal Controls to provide reasonable assurances that their objectives will be met ." Tripath
explained what it meant by "Disclosure Controls" and "Internal Controls" as follows :
Rules promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 , as ainended, (the"Act") de fine "disclosure controls and procedures" to mean controls andprocedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosedby public reporting companies in the repo rts filed or submitted under the Act isrecorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods speci fiedin the SEC's rules and forms ("Disclosure Controls"), New rules promulgated.under the Act de fine "internal control over financial reporting" to mean a processdesigned by, or under the supervision of, a public company's principal execu tiveand principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, andeffected by such company's board of directors , management and other personnel,to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted account ing principles ("GAAP"), includ ing those policies andprocedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detailaccurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of thecompany, (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded asnecessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with (AAP,and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being arcade only inaccordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company and
r'Aut 11!dZ
7
V uV! Luuu VT. LJ ! VVVVJT F J.I'f ,I,nc h' bE 12132
(iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection ofunauthorized acquisition , use or disposition of the company' s assets that couldhave a material effect on the financial statements (Internal Controls").
23. The Form 10-K also represented that Tripath properly recognized revenue onl y
after being reasonably assured that the sale was consummated, and where sales to distributors
were concerned, only after distributors sold the p roducts to customers , as follows:
The Company recognizes revenue in accordance with Securities and ExchangeCommission Staff Accounting Bulletin No . 304 ("SAB 104"), "RevenueRecognition in Financial Statements" . The Company recognizes revenue whenall of the following criteria are met: 1) there is persuasive evidence that anarrangement exists, 2) delivery of goods has occurred, 3) the sales price is fixed ordeterminable, and 4) collectibility is reasonably assured. The, following policiesapply to the Company's major categories of revenue transactions.
,Mlles to OiM Customers: Under the Company's standard terms and conditionsof sale, title and risk of loss transfer to the customer at the time product isdelivered to the customer, FOB shipping point, and revenue is recognizedaccordingly. The Company accrues the estimated cost of post-sale obligations,including basic product warranties or returns, based on historical experience. TheCompany has experienced minimal warranty or other returns to date.
Sales to Distributors : The Company provides its distributors certain incentivessuch as stock rotation, price protection, and other offerings . As a result of theseincentives, the Company defers recognition of revenue until such time that thedistributor sells product to its customer.
24. Accordingly, the Form 10-K represented that Tripath used sufficient controls to
ensure that its financial reporting was accurate and that revenue would not be recognized until it s
distributors actually sold the products to its customers . Tripath's Form 1 O-Q made substantiall y
similar representations.
25. Notably, the Form l0-l( also represented that Tripath had developed
"revolutionary" technology for digital audio amplifiers that it called "Godzilla" architecture :
fn September 2003, we announced the introduction of a new breakthrough lowcost power stage architecture platform, based on "CMOS" processes, which werefer to as "Godzilla" that can be used across the broad spectrum of audi oamplifiers from 10 Watt per channel PC stereo to greater than 150 Watt perchannel audio video receivers . We believe that this new architecture will enabl e
8
Uo. uor L r,o~j Ulf .- LD ron ~n j4 r 1NANUE PAGE 13/32
IS to reduce our manufactl nng costs in the future and help us compete moreeffectivelywith traditional analog amplifiers and other digital solutions .
In January 2004, we announced our first four amplifier devices based on the, newGiodzilla, CMOS process and we are currently sampling these devices withvarious customers . These four devices can deliver a wide range of power from 50up to 200 Watts per channel . Volume production on all four devices is expected tobegin during the third quarter of 2004,
26. On April 22, 2004, Tripath reported financial results for its first quarter of fisca l
year 2004, Revenues for the first quarter ended March 31, 2004 were $4 .2 million, a sequential
increase of 2% over revenues of $4.1 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003 and an
increase of 40% over revenues of $3 .0 million for the first quarter of fiscal year 2003 . Tripath's
net loss applicable to the common stockholders for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 was $1 .8
million or $(0.04) per share, compared to a net loss of $1 .4 million, or $(0.03) per share for the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003, and a net loss of $2 .5 million of $(0 .06) per share for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2003. The gross profit margin declined during the first quarter of fiscal
year 2004 to 29% compared with 33% for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004 to 29%
compared with 33% for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003 primarily due to higher assembly
and test manufacturing costs . Operating expenses increased by 7% from $2.8 million for the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003 to $3 .0 million for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 .
27. On May 21, 2004, Tripath filed its amended quarterly report with the SEC on
Form 10-Q. Iripath's Form l0-Q was signed by Eichler and reaffirmed Tripath's previously
announced financial results. With respect to its financial results, Tripath stated :
The unaudited condensed interim consolidated financial statements includedherein have been prepared by Tripath Technology Inc . (the ; "Company") inaccordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States ofAmerica and reflect all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments,which in the opinion of management are necessary to state fairly the Company's,financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented .
9
-+W' cror tw.J vt . L:! I OUJU04 FINANCE
28. In addition, Tripath's July 2004 Form 8-K., which attached a July 15, 2004 press
release, represented that Tripath's revenues for the second quarter of 2004, ending a few week s
before on June 30, 2004, would be %4 .4 million and that it was making "good progress" in
securing additional "design wins" on the Cmdzilla architecture :
Tripath Technolo Inc. (NASDAQ: TRPH}, creators of Digital PowerProcessing (DPP`} and Class-T4 advanced I -bit digital audio amplifiersannounced that it has reduced its revenue expectation for the second quarter to b e
approximately $4.4 million, as compared to the previous expectation of $5million- Revenues for the first quarter ended March 31, 2004 were $4.2 million.
Dr. Adya Tripathi, Chairman, President and CEO stated, " Shipments primarily inthe gaming market segment were lower that what we had previously expected dueto softer demand which we believe is a temporary inventory correction ." Dr.Tripathi also added, "'Demand for our products in the communications (DSL linedriver) and in the home entertainment system market segments were muchstronger during the second quarter of 2004 than company expectations . These
market segments represented approximately 2 0% and 25% of revenues for the .June quarter respectively while during the first quarter of 2004 these segmentsrepresented approximately 8% and 2% of revenues respectively ."
Dr. Tripathi commented, "Sales of our products in the flat panel TV segmentduring the second quarter remained strong and represented approximately 51% ofrevenues, the same percentage as during the first quarter. WVhile we haveexperienced some increased price competition in this marketplace we still remainthe performance leader in this marketplace. With the recently announcedintroduction of the new !'AA 2009 device, which we anticipate to start shippingduring the later part of the third quarter, Tripath will offer a more cost competitiveas well as a high performance solution primarily geared for the flat panel TVmarket „
Dr_ Tripathi also added, "We also believe that we are making good progress insecuring additional design wins in the home entertainment system market basedon the new low cost Godzilla architecture based on feedback from various majorJapanese and Chinese OEMS as well as in securing design wins with automotiveOEMS for in-dash units. We'll discuss this in more detail during the upcomingconference call : '
29. The statements contained in ¶j 20-28 were materially false and misleading whe n
made because Defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following : (1) that Tripath improperly
recognized revenue from sales of product that was eventually returned to the. distributor; (2) that
as a result of this, Tripatth had to increase its sales return rese rve for the third quarter and had to
take a charge of approximately $4.0 - $4.5 million for excess inventory ; (3) that Tripath's
financial results were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") ; (4)
that Tripath lacked adequate internal controls, especially the ability to adequately estimate
distributor sales returns in accordance with SFAS no . 48; (5) that as a result of the above,
Ta path 's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times and Defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their statements regarding Tripath ; and (6) that Tripath had not and would
not secure "design wins ' for its Godzilla architecture .
30. Defendants made false and misleading statements in Tripath's SBC filings
including (1) that Tripath used appropriate controls to report information accurately; (2) that
Tripath's second qua rter 2004 revenues were $4.4 million; and (3 ) that Tripath had "design
wins" on its "revolutionary" Godziilla architecture .
31 . Notably, Tripath 's false representation that it was making "good progress" o n
securing "additional" design-wins for the Godzilla architecture necessarily meant that Tripath
had been securing "design-wins" for its Godzilla architecture all along. According to Tripath's
Form 10-K and Form 10-Q, such "design wins" were instances where Tripath's "products [were)
selected for design into new products of current and potential customers ."
Falsity of Defendants' Representations And Omissions of Material Fact s
32. The Relevant Filings filed by Tripath with the SEC were false and misleading .
As discussed above, Tripath represented that : (1) it used appropriate controls to report
information accurately and that its revenue from sales to distributors was recognized only after
products were actually sold to customers ; (2) that its second quarter 2004 revenues were $4 .4
million; and (3) that it had "design wins" on its promising Godzilla architecture . Tripath's own
subsequent SEC filings prove that those representations were false and misleading .
It
~Y~ c,~/~ cc.+~.+v ~'t . GJ t ~.JVJUJ`t r 1Nr-)Nt;t PAGE 16/32
33. Specifically, on August 5-6, 2005, only three days after the execution of the
Purchase Agreement Tripath announced its second quXter results in its 8-K. and 1OQ. In
announcing design wins on some of its products, design wins on its Godzilla architecture were
noticeably absent. This absence was in direct contrast to Tripath's prior representation that it
already bad design wins on that product and that it was making progress on even more "design
wind."
34. Tripath initially failed to explain that it had not secured any design wins on it s
GodzilIa architecture. It did so onlyafter Langley and Trlpath already had entered into the
Purchase Agreement. In Wpath's March 24, 2005 filing with the SEC, Tripath explained that :
"We introduced our lower cost `Godzilla' architecture products in January 2004 and began
sampling them in certain customers' products in mid-2004 . However, we have not received
design-wins for these products to date."
35. The Godzilla product was not the only subject of Tripath's false representation s
and material omissions. Tripatb's $4.4 million in reported revenues for the second quarter of
2004 were false- On January 31, 2005, Thhpath filed an 8-K announcing that it had restated its
earnings - because it had improperly recognized revenue from sales to distributors of products
that had not actually been sold to customers . This improper revenue recognition conflicted with
its own policy and representations as to how revenue was supposed to be recognized . Tripath's
January 31, 2005 8-K revealed that :
As described in the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 18,2004 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22,2004, the Registrant's Audit Committee directed the Registrant's Chief FinancialOfficer to investigate the matter involving approximately $1 .3 million of productthat was returned to one of the Registrant's distributors (the "Distributor) by theDistributor's customers and report the findings to the Audit Committee. As aresult of such investigation, on January 25, 2005 the Registrant's AuditCommittee concluded that the Registrant should restate certain financial
12
r INANUL PAGE 17/32
information that was previously reported in the Company's Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 30, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon August 6, 2004 (the "June 2004 Form 1 Q-Q") to properly reflect its revenueand related financial information for the referenced periods (the "Restatement") .Accordingly, the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three months andsix months ended June 30, 2004 and the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June30, 2004 included in the tune 2004 Form I O-Q should no longer be relied upon.
Eased upon the investigation, the Audit Committee concluded that approximately
$1 .4 million of a sale of the Registrant's product to the Distributor did not meet
the appropriate revenue recognition criteria because a former employee of theRegistn t had agreed that the Distributor could return the product at theDistributor's discretion, which forms the basis of the Restatement . This formeremployee had on this occasion agreed to a term of sale that was outside of theRegistrant's standard practices, This term of sale was not referenced in thedocurneiitation related to the sale submitted to the Registrant's financedepartment.
36. Accordingly, Tripath's representations as to its policies on recognizing revenue
and its disclosure and internal controls were false and misleading . In addition, Tripath's
representations as to $4 .4 million in revenue during the second quarter of 2004 were false and
misleading. Its revenues were actually 30% lower. Further, Tripath's "design wins" on its
"Godzilla" architecture were not realized .
37. The price of Tripath's stock plummeted 17% on heavy volume on August 6, 2004
alone . From a price of $2.42 on August 2, 2004, the date of the Purchase Agreement, the stock
declined to a low of j ust $1 .09 per share by August 11, 2004.
38 . Langley sold Tripath common stock during the period of August 3, 2004 t o
September 9, 2004 .
39_ Also, on October 22, 2004, Tripath announced that net revenues for the thir d
quarter of 2004 would be significantly below prior guidance of $4 - $4.5 million. More
specifically, Tripath stated :
Shipments made to customers during the third quarter are currently estimated tobe between $ 1 .9 mi llion and $2 .1 milon. Tripath is currently reviewing thereturn of $1.3 million of product to a distributor in the third qua rter. This product
13
°P( riot 4r)OU o' r ro rouini4 FINANCE PAGE 18/32
had been shipped to customers by the distributor, and recognized as revenue byTripath, in the quarter ended June 30, 2004. The distributor paid for this productduring the third quarter. The Distributor will not return this product to Tripath.Tripath may restate its revenue for the quarter ended June 30, increase its salesreturn reserve for the third quarter, Which would reduce net revenue in the thirdquarter, or make other adjustments. In addition, Tripath plans to take a charge ofapproximately $4.0 - $4.5 million for excess inventory. Tripath will alsoimplement a variety of measures to reduce operating expenses and stremline itscurrent business model.
Tripath anticipates that its net loss for the thind quarter will be significantlygreater than previously anticipated. In addition, Tripath expects that its cash, cashequivalents and restricted cash balance will be approximately $7 .3 million atSeptember 30, 2004, and estimates that the net cash used in operating activitiestotaled approximately $3 .0 million for the third quarter.
Tripath also announced today that its former independent accountants, BDOSeidman, LLP, resigned on October 18, 2004. As more fully explained in the
Form 8-K that will be filed by Tripath today, on October 18, 2004 BDO Seidman
issued a letter asserting material weaknesses in Tripath's internal controlsconcerning the effectiveness of Tripath's Audit Committee and Tripath's abilityto estimate distributor sales returns in accordance with SFAS no . 48_ Tripath is
actively recruiting a "financial expert' to join the Board and does not agree thatthere is a material weakness over its ability to estimate distributor returns in
accordance with SFAS No. 4$.
40. This news shocked the market . Shares of Tripath fell $ .75 per share, or 49 .34
percent, on October 25, 2004, to close at $ .77 per share.
Tripath 's Violation of GAAP Rules
41 . GAAP states that "revenue should not be recognized until it is realized or
realizable and earned." FASB Concepts Statement No. 5,183. The, conditions for the recognition
of revenue are met when "persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or
services have been rendered, the seller's price is fixed or deter minable, collectibility of the sales
price is reasonably assured and when the entity has substantially performed the obligation s
which entitle it to the benefits represented by the revenue ." Here, Tripath improperly recognized
revenue when revenue from such transactions was not realizable and earned, which is i n
violation of GAAP.
14
ri 1-1)r u ,3r 4ririo rjct ; za rondndq t- 1N( NCE
42. Liven these aced nting irregularities, Tripath announced financial results that
were in violation of GAAP, Tripath's own announced revenue recognition policies, and th e
following principles:
(a) The principle that "interim financial reporting should be basedupon the same accounting principles and practices used to prepare annualfinancial statements" was violated (APB No . 28,110);
(b) The principle that "financial reporting should provide informationthat is useful to present to potential investors and creditors and other users inmalting rational investment, credit, and similar decisions" was violated (FASBStatement of Concepts No .1,134);
(c) The principle that "f ancial. reporting should provide informationabout the economic resources of an enterprise, the claims to those resources, andeffects of transactions, events, and circumstances that change resources andclaims to those resources" was violated (PA .SB Statement of Concepts No . 1,140);
(d) The principle that "financial reporting should provide informationabout an enterprise's financial performance during a period" was violated (FASBStatement of Concepts No . 1,142) ;
(e) The principle that "completeness, meaning that nothing is left outof the information that may be necessary to insure that it validly representsunderlying events and conditions" was violated (FASB Statement of ConceptsNo. 2,179) ;
(f) The principle that "financial reporting should be reliable in that itrepresents what it purports to represent" was violated (FASB Statement ofConcepts No. 2,1158-59); and
(g) The principle that. "conservatism be used as a prudent reaction touncertainty to try to ensure that uncertainties and risks inherent in businesssituations are adequately considered" was violated. (FAS Statement of ConceptsNo. 2, 195).
43. The adverse information concealed by Defendants and detailed above was in
violation of Item 303 of Regulation S-K under the federal securities law (17 C.RR, 229.303).
Additional Scienter legations
44. As alleged herein, Defendants acted with scienter in that Defendants knew tha t
the public documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name of Tripath were
materially false and misleading ; knew that such statements or documents would be issued or
PAGE 19/32
15
t D rear ZUrJZ U-4 ; Lo tObJbj4 F 1NANCE PAGE 20/32
disseminated to the investing public including Langley and relied upon by Langley in making its
determination to enter into the Purchase Agreement; and knowingly and substantially
participated or acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such statements or documents as
primary violations of the federal securities laws. As set forth elsewhere herein in detail,
Defendants, by virtue of their receipt of infbnnation reflecting the true facts regarding Tripath,
their control over, and/or receipt and/or modification of Tripath allegedly materially misleading
misstatements and/or their associations with Tripath which made them privy to confidential
proprietary information concerning Tripath, participated in the fraudulent scheme alleged herein.
45. Defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded the falsity and :misleading nature
of the information which they caused to be disseminated to the investing public . The ongoing
fraudulent scheme described in this complaint could not have been perpetrated over a substantial
period of time, as has occurred, without the knowledge and complicity of the personnel at the
highest level of Tripath, including the Individual Defendants.
46. Defendant Ttipathi was able to sell his shares while Tripath's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices and reaped about $2 million in proceeds as shown by the proceedin g