Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04073/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04073-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

FENWICK & WEST 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

STIPULATION AND PROP. ORDER SETTING 

SCHEDULE FOR FILING CONSOLIDATED 

COMPLAINT AND REPONSES THERETO

CASE NO. CV 09-4073 MMC 

SUSAN S. MUCK (CSB NO. 126930) 

smuck@fenwick.com

JENNIFER BRETAN (CSB NO. 233475) 

jbretan@fenwick.com

FENWICK & WEST LLP 

555 California Street, 12th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 875-2300 

Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 

JAY L. POMERANTZ (CSB NO. 209869) 

jpomerantz@fenwick.com

FELIX S. LEE (CSB NO. 197084) 

flee@fenwick.com

FENWICK & WEST LLP

Silicon Valley Center 

801 California Street 

Mountain View, California 94041

Telephone: (650) 988-8500 

Facsimile: (650) 938-5200

Attorneys for Defendants 

Immersion Corporation, Victor A. Viegas, Clent 

Richardson, Stephen Ambler and Daniel Chavez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re: IMMERSION CORPORATION 

SECURITIES LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

ALL ACTIONS 

Case No. CV 09-4073 MMC 

 CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE FOR 

FILING OF CONSOLIDATED 

COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES 

THERETO

(Civil L.R. 7-12) 

Judge: The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

Date Action Filed: September 2, 2009 

Case 3:09-cv-04073-MMC Document 59 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 4
FENWICK & WEST 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

STIPULATION AND PROP. ORDER SETTING 

SCHEDULE FOR FILING CONSOLIDATED 

COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES THERETO

1 CASE NO. CV 09-4073 MMC 

WHEREAS, on December 21, 2009, this Court issued an order consolidating several 

related securities class action complaints as In re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation,

appointing John P. Loos as Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead Plaintiff’s selection of Brower 

Piven, A Professional Corporation, as Lead Class Counsel, and directing Lead Plaintiff and 

defendants Immersion Corporation, Victor A. Viegas, Clent Richardson, Stephen Ambler and 

Daniel Chavez (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”) to meet and confer and, no later than 

January 8, 2010, submit a stipulated schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint (the 

“Consolidated Complaint”) and for the briefing of responses thereto; 

WHEREAS, on July 1, 2009, Immersion Corporation (“Immersion” or the “Company”) 

announced that the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors was conducting an investigation 

into certain previous revenue transactions in Immersion’s Medical line of business; 

WHEREAS, on August 10, 2009, Immersion (1) announced that its Audit Committee 

concluded that a restatement of the Company’s previously issued consolidated financial 

statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008 and auditor’s report thereon, and 

previously issued unaudited financial statements as of and for the periods ended March 31, 2009, 

December 31, 2008, September 30, 2008, June 30, 2008 and March 31, 2008, would be required 

(“Anticipated Restatement”); and (2) stated that it was diligently pursuing these matters and 

intended to file its restatement as soon as reasonably practicable after the conclusion of the Audit 

Committee’s investigation and analysis; 

WHEREAS, on December 1, 2009, Immersion announced that it was working diligently 

towards filing its restatement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) as soon as 

practicable; and 

WHEREAS, because the Parties anticipate that Immersion’s Anticipated Restatement 

may relate to matters underlying and/or relevant to the allegations in this action, the Parties 

respectfully submit that judicial resources and those of the Parties may be conserved and that 

judicial efficiency may be achieved if the Consolidated Complaint were permitted to be filed after 

the Anticipated Restatement; 

Case 3:09-cv-04073-MMC Document 59 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 4
FENWICK & WEST 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

STIPULATION AND PROP. ORDER SETTING 

SCHEDULE FOR FILING CONSOLIDATED 

COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES THERETO

2 CASE NO. CV 09-4073 MMC 

IT IS ACCORDINGLY STIPULATED, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-12, by and between 

undersigned counsel for the Parties that: 

(i) Lead Plaintiff shall file a Consolidated Complaint no later than 60 days after the 

Anticipated Restatement is filed with the SEC, but, absent further Order by the 

Court, in no event later than June 30, 2010. The Consolidated Complaint will 

supersede all existing complaints filed in this action, and Defendants are not 

required to respond to any of the complaints filed in this action prior to the 

Consolidated Complaint; 

(ii) The deadline for Defendants to move, answer or otherwise respond to the 

Consolidated Complaint shall be 60 days after the Consolidated Complaint is 

filed; 

(iii) In the event Defendants move to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint, Lead 

Plaintiff shall file his opposition(s) to Defendants’ motion(s) no later than 60 

days after such motion(s) are filed; and 

(iv) In the event Defendants move to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint, 

Defendants shall file any replies to Lead Plaintiff’s opposition(s) to the 

motion(s) to dismiss no later than 40 days after such opposition(s) are filed. 

Case 3:09-cv-04073-MMC Document 59 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 4
January 12, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-04073-MMC Document 59 Filed 01/12/10 Page 4 of 4