SECURITIES LITIGATION

Bergeson, LLP has a full range of securities litigation experience. The firm has substantial experience in representing corporations and individuals before regulators, most notably the SEC. The firm also has conducted internal investigations on behalf of Audit Committees and Special Litigation Committees for public and privately held companies. Bergeson, LLP utilizes its attorneys’ experience with securities and accounting issues, combined with close working relationships with top forensic accountants, to efficiently and effectively determine the relevant facts, thereby assisting clients in complying with applicable laws and regulations and protecting shareholder value.

REPRESENTATIVE SECURITIES LITIGATION

In re Rambus Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. C-06-3513 JF, United States District Court, Northern District of California
In re Rambus Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-06-4346 JF, United States District Court, Northern District of California
Kelley v. Rambus Inc., et al., No. C-07-01238 RMW, United States District Court, Northern District of California
Bergeson represents a former officer of Rambus in derivative shareholder suits concerning stock option practices.

In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Derivative Litigation, No. C-06-03894 RMW, United States District Court, Northern District of California
In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Securities Litigation (Class Action), No. C-06-0626 RMW, United States District Court, Northern District of California
Ronconi v. Sutardja, et al., No. C-07-0892 SC, United States District Court, Northern District of California
Bergeson represents an officer of Marvell in derivative shareholder suits concerning stock option practices.

In re Trident Microsystems, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. C-06-03440, United States District Court, Northern District of California
Limke v. Lin, et al., No. 1-CV-07-080390, Santa Clara County Superior Court
Bergeson represents an officer of Trident in derivative shareholder suits concerning stock option practices.

In re Cylink Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-98-04292 (VRW), United States District Court, Northern District of California. Decision reported: 274 F.Supp.2d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
The Firm represented the Company's former Vice President of Sales and Marketing. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, Cylink Corporation and various officers and directors, violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5). Plaintiffs further alleged the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs contended that during the relevant period, defendants caused Cylink to publicly materially overstate revenues as a result of reckless and improper revenue recognition practices. Ultimately, Cylink entered into an agreement with all plaintiffs in the securities class action lawsuit to settle all claims in the class action for $6.2 million. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ultimately issued an order granting final approval of the settlement and entering final judgment in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

Scognamillo, et al. v. Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, et al., No. C03-02061 (TEH), United States District Court, Northern District of California. Reported decision: 2005 WL2045807 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2005).
This case involves allegations of stock price manipulation by investment bankers in connection with an Initial Public Offering. The Firm represents the former Chief Financial Officer of Netcentives, Inc. whose stock is alleged to have been manipulated. The Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by Bergeson, LLP, dismissing the action with prejudice against the former CFO of Netcentives. The case is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.

United States of America v. Frank Quattrone, No. 03CR582 (RO), United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
The Firm represented a testifying witness called to testify during the trial of Frank P. Quattrone on charges of obstruction and witness tampering related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation of Credit Suisse First Boston LLC and its allocation of shares in IPOs it underwrote.

S&A Biotech Investments, LLC v. Thomas Baruch, et al., No. CV797835, Santa Clara County Superior Court.
In this derivative action, the Firm represented four of the individual defendant directors of nominal defendant Rodenstock North America, Inc. ("RNA"). Plaintiff alleged that the individual defendant directors of RNA breached fiduciary duties to RNA and its shareholders by voting in favor of a settlement between RNA and ACLARA Biosciences, Inc. ("ACLARA") relating to the re-sale of ACLARA shares to ACLARA. Plaintiff dismissed the action against the individual defendant directors without any payment to Plaintiff.

In re InaCom Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 00-701 (JJF), United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
The Firm represented the former Chairman of the Board of InaCom in this Securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The gravamen of the Consolidated Amended Complaint was that defendants concealed from the investing public that InaCom was experiencing financial and operating difficulties which were adversely impacting InaCom's revenue and profits, as well as its relationships with clients and customers.

Walsh v. Carrington (IMP, Inc. derivative action), No. C-97-20238-SW (PVT), United States District Court, Northern District of California.
In this action, the Firm represented a special litigation committee that assessed the derivative action filed against the Company's officers and directors. The derivative action settled without any payment of money and the Company agreed to consider certain prophylactic measures in its insider trading policy. The Firm assisted in writing the Company's new insider trading policy.

In re Valence Technology Securities Litigation, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21773, United State District Court, Northern District of California
In Valence, the Firm represented Alan Shugart, at the time the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Seagate Technology, who was an outside director of Valence. The Firm filed successful motions to dismiss which ultimately resulted in the final dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims against Mr. Shugart before any costly discovery could be taken.

In re YES! Entertainment Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. C97-1388-CRB, United States District Court, Northern District of California.
Miller v. YES! Entertainment, et al., No. V-0136747, Alameda County Superior Court.
Wang v. YES! Entertainment, et al., No. V-13287-9, Alameda County Superior Court.
In these actions, the Firm was lead defense counsel with Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, and represented all of the YES! defendants. The Firm filed four successful demurrers to the state court complaints, and a successful motion to dismiss to the federal complaint, after which the Firm was able to achieve a favorable settlement of all three cases for a total amount of $2.25 million. This settlement was reached before any substantive discovery could be taken. Potential damages in the case exceeded $60 million.

Gaylinn v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Master File No. C99-2185-MMC, United States District Court, Northern District of California.
The Firm served as local counsel for the Chicago law firm of Sachnoff & Weaver, Ltd. in representing Casey G. Cowell, Vice Chairman of the Board and consultant to 3Com Corporation. Plaintiffs in this securities class action allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against 3Com Corporation and certain of its officers and directors. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Second Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in the case, alleged that 3Com's officers and directors made material misrepresentations with regard to 3Com's Enterprise Systems Products (including its CoreBuilder 7000 switch and CoreBuilder 9000 switch), inventory controls and business model in order to artificially inflate the company's stock and engage in insider trading. Having granted an earlier motion to dismiss with leave to amend, United States District Judge Maxine Chesney granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend and with prejudice.

In re Seagate Technology II Securities Litigation, Case No. 95-15712, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Decision reported: 98 F.3d 1346 (9th Cir. 1996); 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38601.
In Seagate II, the Firm was co-counsel with Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, representing all of the Seagate defendants. The Firm's attorneys had extensive involvement in the preliminary motions and discovery process throughout the case. In addition to authoring successful motions to dismiss portions of the complaint at the pleading stage, the Firm authored the final summary judgment motion which the District Court granted in favor of all of the Seagate defendants. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's summary judgment on the basis of appellate briefing which the Firm played the leading role in preparing.

In re Worlds of Wonder Securities Litigation, Case Nos. 93-15321, 93-15535, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Decision reported: 35 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1994), 694 F. Supp. 1427 (N.D. Cal. 1988).
The Firm was co-counsel with Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati and represented the Company's former CEO, CFO and President. The Firm successfully obtained summary judgment for the directors and officers at the District Court level on the basis of the "bespeaks caution" doctrine. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. Prior to this case, the Ninth Circuit had not adopted the "bespeaks caution" doctrine.

Shugart v. CAOC, et al., Case No. M34316, Monterey County Superior Court.
The Firm represented Alan Shugart in this libel action arising out of the political campaign wars over securities law and tort reform. The defendants (the California Trial Lawyers' Association and their political consultants) had broadcast an infamous television advertisement which equated Mr. Shugart with Charles Keating by, among other things, visually "morphing" Mr. Keating's photo into a photo of Mr. Shugart, and vice versa. In addition to asserting First Amendment defenses, the defendants set out to try to prove that Mr. Shugart had, in fact, engaged in securities law violations. The Firm successfully prosecuted Mr. Shugart's claims before the Superior Court, the Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court, defeating the defendants' attempts to have the action dismissed or thrown out on summary judgment. Faced with having to go to trial, the defendants agreed to publish a written apology to Mr. Shugart in all of the major California newspapers (at a cost of approximately $150,000), and to contribute an additional $350,000 to charities designated by Mr. Shugart.

In re Industrial Funding Corporation, Case No. C92-0343-THE, United States District Court, Northern District of California
The Firm represented the former Chief Financial Officer of Industrial Funding who had been named as a third party defendant by the underwriters in a fraud and indemnification action. The underwriters filed the action only months before trial of the underlying class action securities case. The Firm aggressively responded to the third party complaint, and immediately commenced taking key discovery from the underwriters. The Firm's efforts were instrumental in achieving a favorable resolution of both the securities class action and the third party action.