Source: http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/6116/handspring-and-palm-settle-lawsuits/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:31:34+00:00

Document:
Handspring, Inc. and Palm, Inc. have jointly announced that they had entered into a memorandum of understanding with counsel to the plaintiffs in two lawsuits relating to the proposed acquisition of Handspring by Palm.
The lawsuits, Kathleen Goldhirsch v. Handspring, Inc. and Varant Majarian v. Handspring, Inc., were filed June 17 and June 19, 2003, respectively, in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, New Castle County.
Under the terms of the memorandum, Handspring, Palm and the plaintiffs to the above-named actions have agreed, subject to approval by the court, to enter into a settlement with respect to all claims raised by the plaintiffs to the lawsuit. If the court approves the settlement contemplated in the memorandum, the lawsuits will be dismissed.
So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
Ok, like so Jeff and Donna booked us to play the 2002 Handspring Christmas party and like I told them we don't want no brown M and Ms in the backstage party bowl, and like Hawk - our guitarist - found a brown M and M in the bowl and it like freaked him out, and like now he doesn't play so good no more. So we're suing Handspring for $38,000,666.69 for pain and suffering. Also, Carcass - our bassist - bought a Palm T³ and it like fried his SanDisk 512 MD SD card, so we're like suing for an extra $666.
And the band's web traffic spikes!
I'm going to book them for my office party! Rock on dudes.
I still can't even fathom what some metal band is going to sue handspring over regarding it's acquisition by palm? were they large shareholders? angry institutional investors? disillusioned dotcomers? strange.
I want details of this lawsuit, this is the funniest thing I've heard in ages.
Maybe their Treos got poor reception?
Gaurav, you have to dig through the 400+ page S-4 document at the SEC to find the answer, I may hunt for it later unless someone else finds it.
I hope the settlement with the moronic metal heads was something like "drop the lawsuit and we won't have Guido bust a cap on you while you're sleeping."
"The cases are captioned Goldhirsch v. Handspring, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 20376-NC and Majarian v. Handspring, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 20381-NC. The Majarian complaint was amended on or about June 23, 2003 to, among other things, delete certain previously named officer defendants. Both complaints allege that the officers and directors of Handspring breached their fiduciary duties to Handspring stockholders by, among other things, failing to undertake an appropriate evaluation of Handspring’s net worth as a merger or acquisition candidate and failing to maximize Handspring stockholder value by not engaging in a meaningful auction of Handspring. The Majarian complaint also alleges, among other things, that the officers and directors of Handspring breached their fiduciary duties by failing to act independently so that the interests of Handspring’s public stockholders would be protected and enhanced. Both complaints allege that Palm aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty of Handspring’s officers and directors. Both complaints seek, among other things, a preliminary and permanent injunction against the transaction, a rescission of the transaction if it is consummated and unspecified damages. The Goldhirsch complaint also requests, among other things, that the Court order Handspring’s officers and directors to take all necessary steps to maximize stockholder value, including open bidding and/or an unspecified market check."
heh, no kidding, and that was prob. the funniest post ever!
In other words, "We bought Handspring at $40 and lost a bundle when their stock tanked so we're suing to get back our losses. The next time I lose thousands of dollars in Los Vegas, I'm suing the casino.
"If the court approves the settlement contemplated in the memorandum, the lawsuits will be dismissed. The terms of the settlement contemplated by the memorandum require that additional disclosure be made concerning the merger. This disclosure is contained in a Form 8-K filed by Handspring today with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The parties also agreed that plaintiffs may seek attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $215,000 that Handspring will pay if the attorney's fees and costs are granted by the court. There will be no other settlement payment by Handspring or Palm. However, there can be no assurance that the court will approve the proposed settlement or that any ultimate settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum."
American lawsuits are a cancer.
It's amazing that any companies even bother trying to operate in this kind of environment. The scary thing is, all it takes is a single bad judgement in any of these ridiculous cases to cost the company millions. Not to nention the milions already wasted on lawyers' fees. Lawsuits are flushing America down the toilet.
On January 23, 2003, Peer-to-Peer Systems LLC filed a complaint against Palm in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case is captioned Peer-to-Peer Systems, LLC vs. Palm, Inc. , Civil Action No. 03-115. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,618,045 entitled “Interactive Multiple Player Game System and Method of Playing a Game Between at Least Two Players”.
In June 2001, the first of several putative stockholder class action lawsuits was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York against certain of the underwriters for Palm’s initial public offering, Palm and several of its officers. The complaints, which have been consolidated under the caption In re Palm, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation , Case No. 01 CV 5613, assert that the prospectus from Palm’s March 2, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering.
On August 7, 2001, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm and 3Com in California Superior Court, San Francisco County. The case is captioned Connelly et al v. Palm, Inc., 3 Com Corp et al , Case No. 323587. An amended complaint alleging breach of warranty and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law was filed and served on Palm on August 15, 2001. The amended complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of Palm III, IIIc, V and Vx handhelds, alleges that certain Palm handhelds may cause damage to PC motherboards by permitting an electrical charge, or “floating voltage,” from either the handheld or the cradle to be introduced into the PC via the serial and/or USB port on the PC.
On January 23, 2002, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm in California Superior Court, San Francisco County. The case is captioned Eley et al v. Palm, Inc., Case No. 403768. The unverified complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of Palm m500 and m505 handhelds, alleges (1) that the HotSync function in certain Palm handhelds does not perform as advertised and the products are therefore defective and (2) that upon learning of the problem, Palm did not perform proper corrective measures for individual customers as set forth in the product warranty.
On March 11, 2002, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm in the Wayne County Circuit Court, Detroit, Michigan. The case is captioned Hayman, et al. v Palm, Inc ., Case No. 02-208249-CP. Plaintiffs allege that certain of Palm’s advertisements for its Palm III, V and m100 handheld devices were false or misleading regarding the ability of the device to wirelessly and remotely access emails or the Internet without the need for additional hardware or software sold separately.
In October 2002, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County. The case is captioned Goldstein v. Palm, Inc ., Case No. 02CH19678. The case alleges consumer fraud regarding Palm’s representations that its m100, III, V and VII handheld personal digital assistant, as sold, would provide wireless access to the Internet and email accounts, and would perform common business functions including database management, custom form creation and viewing Microsoft Word and Excel documents, among other tasks.
In August and September 2002, four purported consumer class action lawsuits were filed against Palm in California Superior Court, Santa Clara County; California Superior Court, San Diego County; Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County; and Illinois Circuit Court, St. Clair County. The respective cases are captioned Lipner and Ouyang v. Palm, Inc. , Case No. CV-810533; Veltman v. Palm, Inc ., Case No. 02CH16143; Wireless Consumer’s Alliance, Inc. v. Palm, Inc., Case No. GIC-794940; and Cokenour v. Palm, Inc. , Case No. 02L0592. All four cases allege consumer fraud regarding Palm’s representations that its m130 handheld personal digital assistant supported more than 65,000 colors. Certain of the cases also allege breach of express warranty and unfair competition.
On February 27, 2003, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm in California Superior Court, Santa Clara County. The case is captioned Hemmingsen et al v. Palm, Inc., Case No. CV815074. The unverified complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of Palm m515 handhelds, alleges that such handhelds fail at unacceptably high rates, and in particular that instant updating and synchronization of data with PCs often will not occur.
wait a minute here... I am understanding this correctly?
So did a metal band actually sue handspring?? And they settled it?
Nothing is settled until Hawk and Carcass get new guitars and Donna sings the duet with Hawk on the new Varant Majarian© CD, to be released on PalmSpring Records (a Sony Corp division) January 15, 2004.
Check out the new video for the first single, "(What's This Goo?)In The Palm Of My Hand". Jeff does an amazing bongo drum solo that has to be heard to be believed.
Yes we're wusses with effeminate haircuts, but we got you to look at us and a ton of free advertising.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.