Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02811/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02811-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation

---

COOLEY GODWARD LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

746138 v1/PA 1. 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

C-06-2811-MHP 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 

JOHN C. DWYER (136533) (dwyerjc@cooley.com) 

JEFFREY S. KARR (186372) (jkarr@cooley.com) 

JEFFREY M. KABAN (235734) (jkaban@cooley.com) 

Five Palo Alto Square 

3000 El Camino Real 

Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 

Telephone: (650) 843-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 843-0663 

Attorneys for Nominal Defendant 

Power Integrations, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Kimberly Quaco, Derivatively on Behalf of 

Nominal Defendant POWER 

INTEGRATIONS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Balu Balakrishnan, et al. 

Defendants, 

Power Integrations, Inc., 

Nominal Defendant. 

Case No. C-06-2811-MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO CONSOLIDATED 

COMPLAINT AND RESCHEDULING 

HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

SHAREHOLDER DEMAND REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 6-2, Nominal Defendant Power 

Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”) and Representative Plaintiffs Geoffrey Wren, Kimberly 

Quaco, and Christopher DeBoskey (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their respective counsel of 

record, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the time for Power Integrations to respond to the 

Consolidated Complaint by 60 days. In addition, all parties stipulate to a stay of these 

proceedings for 60 days in order to allow the parties to pursue discussions in an effort to resolve 

these matters. This stipulation is based on the following facts: 

Whereas, representative plaintiff Kimberly Quaco initiated this shareholder derivative 

case on behalf of nominal defendant Power Integrations or about April 25, 2006; 

Case 3:06-cv-02811-MHP Document 118 Filed 02/11/07 Page 1 of 7
COOLEY GODWARD LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

746138 v1/PA 2. 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

C-06-2811-MHP 

Whereas, in May 2006, representative plaintiff Kimberly Quaco indicated an intent to file 

an amended complaint. Pursuant to a stipulation signed on May 10, 2006, the parties stipulated 

that plaintiff would file the amended complaint on or before May 26, 2006 and that defendants 

would respond to such amended complaint on or before June 26, 2006; 

Whereas, representative plaintiff Kimberly Quaco filed her amended complaint on May 

26, 2006. At the time of filing, counsel for nominal defendant Power Integrations no longer 

represented all individual defendants. As a result, service was not completed on all defendants at 

the same time. By stipulation dated June 22, 2006 (and approved by the Court), the parties 

agreed to an effective service date and agreed that defendants would respond to the Quaco 

amended complaint on or before September 12, 2006; 

Whereas, on August 1, 2006, after the parties had set the service and response dates by 

stipulation, Kathryn Champlin initiated a shareholder derivative action on behalf of nominal 

defendant Power Integrations based upon allegations that were virtually identical to those alleged 

in the Quaco case. Champlin also moved to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case; 

Whereas, on August 31, 2006, nominal defendant Power Integrations filed a motion to 

extend the time to respond to the Quaco amended complaint until after the motion to consolidate 

and appoint lead plaintiff was resolved; 

Whereas, on September 18, 2006, Kimberly Quaco filed a motion to be appointed lead 

plaintiff; 

Whereas, Christopher DeBoskey initiated a similar shareholder derivative case on behalf 

of nominal defendant Power Integrations on or about September 21, 2006; 

Whereas, the Court consolidated the various actions on September 22, 2006 and agreed 

that defendants need not respond to the various complaints pending resolution of the motion to 

consolidate and appoint lead plaintiff; 

Whereas, the Court heard the motion to appoint lead plaintiff on November 6, 2006 and 

required additional disclosures from the proposed representative plaintiffs before appointing a 

lead plaintiff; 

Whereas, on or about November 22, 2006, Counsel for Kimberly Quaco proposed to add 

Case 3:06-cv-02811-MHP Document 118 Filed 02/11/07 Page 2 of 7
COOLEY GODWARD LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

746138 v1/PA 3. 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

C-06-2811-MHP 

Geoffrey Wren as a representative plaintiff; 

Whereas, on November 30, 2006, Champlin voluntarily dismissed her action and counsel 

for Champlin withdrew the request that she be appointed lead plaintiff; 

Whereas, on December 18, 2006, the Court appointed Geoffrey Wren as lead plaintiff 

and the law firm of Schiffren Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP as lead counsel and ordered 

plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint no later than January 17, 2007; 

Whereas, the Court also set a briefing schedule and required nominal defendant Power 

Integrations to respond to the Consolidated Complaint within 30 days of service of the 

Consolidated Complaint and set a hearing on the anticipated motion to dismiss the Consolidated 

Complaint for failure to comply with the shareholder demand requirement for April 23, 2007; 

Whereas, the Court also continued the date for the various defendants to provide a 

substantive response to the Consolidated Complaint until after the demand futility motion is 

heard; 

Whereas, no discovery has occurred yet and defendants contend such discovery is 

improper under the PSLRA and Delaware law pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss; 

Whereas, the parties desire to engage in informal discovery for the sole purpose of 

discussing and evaluating a potential resolution of this matter; and 

Whereas, the only scheduled events in this case are the briefing and hearing dates on 

nominal defendant Power Integrations’ motion to dismiss the case for failure of plaintiff to 

comply with the shareholder demand requirement. No other scheduled dates will be affected by 

this stipulation. 

Now, therefore, it is hereby stipulated, by and between the undersigned, as follows: 

1. The deadline for nominal defendant Power Integrations, Inc. to respond to the 

Consolidated Complaint with a motion to dismiss based on failure to comply with the shareholder 

demand requirement is extended 60 days from February 16, 2007 to and including April 17, 2006; 

2. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days to oppose the motion to dismiss, through and 

including May 17, 2007, and nominal defendant shall have 20 days to reply to the opposition, 

through and including June 6, 2007. 

Case 3:06-cv-02811-MHP Document 118 Filed 02/11/07 Page 3 of 7
COOLEY GODWARD LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

746138 v1/PA 4. 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

C-06-2811-MHP 

3. The hearing on Power Integrations’ motion to dismiss is hereby continued to June 

25, 2007 or such other date that is convenient to the Court (June ____, 2007); 

4. The defendants need not file substantive responses, including motions to dismiss, 

to the Consolidated Complaint until after the demand futility motion is resolved, the date for such 

responses, if necessary, to be set at the hearing or in the order on the demand futility motion. 

5. All other activities in this matter are stayed for 60 days, through and including 

April 17, 2007, pending settlement discussions. 

Dated: February 7, 2007 SCHIFFRIN BARROWAY TOPAZ & KESSLER, LLP 

By: /s/ Robin Winchester 

 Robin Winchester 

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Dated: February 7, 2007 COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 

 

By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Karr 

Jeffrey S. Karr 

Attorneys for Nominal Defendant 

Power Integrations, Inc. 

Dated: February 7, 2007 LATHAM & WATKINS 

 

By: /s/ David Friedman 

David Friedman 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Balu Balakrishnan, Alan D. Bickell, Nicholas E. 

Brathwaite, R. Scott Brown, Balakrishnan S. Iyer, E. 

Floyd Kvamme 

Case 3:06-cv-02811-MHP Document 118 Filed 02/11/07 Page 4 of 7
COOLEY GODWARD LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

746138 v1/PA 5. 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

C-06-2811-MHP 

Dated: February 7, 2007 HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

 

By: /s/ Carol Lynn Thompson 

Carol Lynn Thompson 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Derek Bell, Roderick D. Davies, Bruce Renouard, 

Vladimir Rumennik, Daniel M. Selleck, John Tomlin and 

Clifford J. Walker 

Dated: February 7, 2007 HOWREY LLP 

By: /s/ Leigh A. Kirmsse 

Leigh A. Kirmsse 

Attorneys for Defendant 

John M. Cobb 

Dated: February 7, 2007 MORRISON & FOERSTER 

By: /s/ Matthew D’Amore______ 

Matthew D’Amore 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Robert G. Staples 

Dated: February 7, 2007 

FENWICK & WEST LLP 

By: /s/ Emmett C. Stanton __________

Emmett C. Stanton 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Howard F. Earhart 

Case 3:06-cv-02811-MHP Document 118 Filed 02/11/07 Page 5 of 7
COOLEY GODWARD LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

746138 v1/PA 6. 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

C-06-2811-MHP 

ORDER

 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February ___, 2007 

The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-02811-MHP Document 118 Filed 02/11/07 Page 6 of 7
COOLEY GODWARD LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

746138 v1/PA 7. 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

C-06-2811-MHP 

FILER’S ATTESTATION

 Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X, Subparagraph B, the undersigned attests that 

all parties have concurred in the filing of this Stipulation and [Proposed Order]. 

Dated: February 7, 2007 COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 

By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Karr 

Jeffrey S. Karr 

Case 3:06-cv-02811-MHP Document 118 Filed 02/11/07 Page 7 of 7