LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

GRIFFIN PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT v SILICONIX Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 18,700, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE ST14TE OF DELAWARE, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00018700, Plaintiff: GRIFFIN PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT, County: New Castle County, Siliconix, Vishay, Special Committee, Shareholders, Fitzgerald, Minority Stockholders, Del, Stockholders, Price, Exchange, Disclosure, Delaware, Transaction, Proposed Transaction, Tender, Stock, Preliminary Injunction, Minority, Fairness, Registration Statement, Directors, Shares, Delaware Law, Standard, Obligations, Preliminaty, Projections, Acquisition, Siliconix Board, Facts, Fiduciary Duties, Zandman, Materials, Schedule, Prospects, Silicomx, Shareholders Litigation, Exchange Ratio , ContentID: 120246281

Case Documents
1 2001-06-14 PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115325
38 pages
PDF
2 2001-06-13 ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 127086
55 pages
PDF
3 2001-06-13 SILICONIXS ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115330
8 pages
PDF
4 2001-06-13 ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115328
55 pages
PDF
5 2001-06-13 ANSWERING BRIEF OF ARNDT LIPCAMAN OWYANG ROSNERBERG AND SMITH IN OPPOSITITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115327
37 pages
PDF
6 2001-06-13 ANSWERING BRIEF OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115326
53 pages
PDF
7 2001-06-11 PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115329
62 pages
PDF
8 2001-05-31 AMENDED COMPLIANT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115195
40 pages
PDF
9 2001-05-23 LETTER FROM CHANCELLOR NOBLE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114874
9 pages
PDF
10 2001-02-27 COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 115196
11 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 10 documents , 368 pages
Price: $ 64.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS
VISHAY
PROPOSED TRANSACTION
DISCLOSURE
MINORITY
PLAINTIFFS
COURT
SHAREHOLDERS
DEL
MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS
OBLIGATIONS
DELAWARE
EXCHANGE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
FAIRNESS
SILICONIX DIRECTORS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
DELAWARE LAW
IRREPARABLE INJURY
SILICONIX BOARD
SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
DISCLOSURE VIOLATIONS
FAIRNESS TEST
DEFENDANTS FAIL
EXCHANGE RATIO
PROJECTIONS
CONNECTION
INCORPORATION
             IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                            IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY



IN RE  SILICONIX INCORPORATED
                                             i        Consolidated CA. No. 18700
SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION                      1




                                   REDACTED

                          PLAINTIFFS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT
                  OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION





                                                                                       I..
                                                                             y         z;
                                                                             :,       c`i
Steven G. Schuhuan                            Kevin G. Abrams               c,:        *.
                                                                            r- : I
Daniel B. Scotti                              Srinivas M. Raju              -         ,+,
                                                                                   1,  -
U. Seth Ottensoser                            J. Travis Laster
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes                   Lisa R. Stark
& Lerach LLP                                  Richards, Layton & Finger
One Pennsylvania Plaza                        One Rodney Square
NewYork,N.Y.  10119                           P.O. Box 551
(212) 594-5300                                Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                              (302) 658-6541
                                              Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff
                                              and the Class
Dated: June  14, 200l





RLFl-2321192-3



                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • IN RE SILICONIX INCORPORATED
  • PLAINTIFFS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT
  • OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
  • Disclosure Requirements Under Delaware Law.
  • Prospects Of Vishay
  • Satisfy The Entire Fairness Test.
  • Give Rise To An Entire Fairness Obligation
  • The Entire Fairness Of The Proposed Transaction
  • DEFENDANTS FAIL TO REEIUT PLAINTIFFS' SHOWING THAT ABSENT A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, PLAINTIFF
  • In re Arkla Exnloration Co. S'holders" Litip., Del.

  • 2 . ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SILICONIX
    FITZGERALD
    SHAREHOLDERS
    COURT
    DEL
    DELAWARE
    PLAINTIFFS
    PRICE
    STANDARD
    STOCK
    FAIRNESS
    TENDER
    REGISTRATION STATEMENT
    SHARES
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    DISCLOSURE
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    STOCKHOLDERS
    DELAWARE LAW
    MATERIALS
    PROJECTIONS
    DEFENDANTS
    GOVERNING STANDARD
    PROBABILITY
    TRANSACTION
    AUTHORITIES
    OCEAN DRILLING
    ACQUISITION
    ALLEGATIONS
    
                                                                               f-1  QT .l'i i  `,, I
                                                                                    ?** t ~.~~.;h~~J;,~
                                                                                               ' .  WQ
    
    
               IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY  OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                          IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
                                --                 ) Consolidated.
    IN RE SILICONIX INCORPORATED                   )   CA.  N o .   18700-NC   :
    SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION                         >)                                           > ]
                                                                                    I'        1..
                                                   >                                          ,  i
                                    REDACTED                                   ;
        ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY, INC.
     IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    
    
    
    
                                         MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TIJNNELL
                                         A. Gilchrist Sparks, LU
                                         R. Judson Scaggs,  Jr.
                                         Jessica Zeldin
                                         Patricia R. Uhlenbrock
                                          1201 N. Market Street
                                         P.O. Box 1347
                                          Wilmington, Delaware  1!)899-1347
                                          (302) 658-9200
                                           Attorneys for Defendant Vishay
                                           Intertechnology, Inc.
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
    Alan R. Friedman
    Jonathan M. Wagner
    Douglas Gray
    Theresa A. Buckley
    9 19 Third Avenue
    New York, New York 10022
    (212) 715-9100
    
    
    June 13,200l
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY,
  • IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
  • MR. FITZGERALD HAS NO PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS ON
  • Mr. Fitzgerald Has Misstated The Governing Standard:
  • Even If The Applicable Standard Is "Entire Fairness" Mr.
  • FAVOR OF ALLOWING THE SILICONIX SHAREHOLDERS,
  • Inc., Del.
  • In re Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co. S'holders Litia.,
  • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

  • 3 . SILICONIXS ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    DEL
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    DUTY
    COURT
    MERITS
    FIDUCIARY DUTY
    OWES
    DELAWARE
    SUCCESS
    SUPR
    INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
    ALLEGES
    LIKELIHOOD
    HARM
    TENDER
    COMPLAINT
    DEFENDANTS
    FACTS
    WRONGDOING
    REASONS
    DELAWARE LAW
    FIDUCIARY DUTIES
    REASONABLE PROBABILITY
    BREACH
    DISCLOSE
    CHANCERY
    KAHN LLP
    VISHAY
    
            IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE!
    
                            IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
    IN RE SILICONlX  INCORPORATED              )         CONSOLIDATED
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION                    >         C. A. No. 18700
    
    
                      SILlCONIX INCORPORATED'S ANSWERING BRIEF
        IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE
                         MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    
    
    
    
                                 MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS LLP
    
                                 Lewis H. Lazarus
                                 Michael A. Weidinger
                                 222 Delaware Avenue, 10th Floor
                                 P. 0. Box 2306
                                 Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2306
                                 (302) 888-6970
                                 Attorneys for Siliconix incorporated
    
    OF COUNSEL:
                                                                            1.    ` >;
    FOLGER, LEVIN & KAHN LLP
    
    Samuel It Miller
    Julie M. Kennedy
    Embarcadero Center West
    275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94 111
    (415) 986-2800
    
    Dated: June 13, 2001
    
    
    
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                                           PAGE
    
    T A B L E   O F  AlJTHORITIES i                                                               i
    
    NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS 1
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE!
  • FOLGER, LEVIN & KAHN LLP
  • PLAINTIFFS CANNOT SHOW THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS OF ANY CLAIM AGAINST SILICONIX
  • Del.
  • In this preliminary injunction proceeding, the plaintiffs bear the burden to
  • Chancery challenging a tender offer made by Vishay TEMIC
  • brief in opposition to plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief.
  • comprehensive statement of the facts developed incident to the June 15 hearing.
  • The Complaint has six counts.
  • fiduciary duty to pay a fair price" in connection with the Tender Offer.
  • This count alleges no wrongdoing
  • This count alleges no wrongdoing on the part of Siliconix.
  • Siliconix against Vishay and the Individual Defendants.
  • success on the merits at trial, prove a reasonable probability of irreparable harm in the
  • Supr., 559 A.2d 1261, 1278-79;
  • It is settled Delaware law, however, that the corporation, in this case Siliconix, owes no
  • including any duty to disclose.
  • 726 A.2d 12 15 ("corporation itself is not liable for a breach of fiduciary duties by
  • For the foregoing reasons and those contained in the briefs of its co-defendants,

  • 4 . ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SILICONIX
    FITZGERALD
    SHAREHOLDERS
    COURT
    DEL
    DELAWARE
    PLAINTIFFS
    PRICE
    STANDARD
    STOCK
    FAIRNESS
    TENDER
    REGISTRATION STATEMENT
    SHARES
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    DISCLOSURE
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    STOCKHOLDERS
    DELAWARE LAW
    MATERIALS
    PROJECTIONS
    DEFENDANTS
    GOVERNING STANDARD
    PROBABILITY
    TRANSACTION
    AUTHORITIES
    OCEAN DRILLING
    ACQUISITION
    ALLEGATIONS
    
                                                                               f-1  QT .l'i i  `,, I
                                                                                    ?** t ~.~~.;h~~J;,~
                                                                                               ' .  WQ
    
    
               IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY  OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                          IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
    
                                --                 ) Consolidated.
    IN RE SILICONIX INCORPORATED                   )   CA.  N o .   18700-NC   :
    SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION                         >)                                           > ]
                                                                                    I'        1..
                                                   >                                          ,  i
                                    REDACTED                                   ;
        ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY, INC.
     IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    
    
    
    
                                         MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TIJNNELL
                                         A. Gilchrist Sparks, LU
                                         R. Judson Scaggs,  Jr.
                                         Jessica Zeldin
                                         Patricia R. Uhlenbrock
                                          1201 N. Market Street
                                         P.O. Box 1347
                                          Wilmington, Delaware  1!)899-1347
                                          (302) 658-9200
                                           Attorneys for Defendant Vishay
                                           Intertechnology, Inc.
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
    Alan R. Friedman
    Jonathan M. Wagner
    Douglas Gray
    Theresa A. Buckley
    9 19 Third Avenue
    New York, New York 10022
    (212) 715-9100
    
    
    June 13,200l
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY,
  • IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
  • MR. FITZGERALD HAS NO PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS ON
  • Mr. Fitzgerald Has Misstated The Governing Standard:
  • Even If The Applicable Standard Is "Entire Fairness" Mr.
  • FAVOR OF ALLOWING THE SILICONIX SHAREHOLDERS,
  • Inc., Del.
  • In re Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co. S'holders Litia.,
  • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

  • 5 . ANSWERING BRIEF OF ARNDT LIPCAMAN OWYANG ROSNERBERG AND SMITH IN OPPOSITITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    DEFENDANTS
    COURT
    STOCKHOLDERS
    DEL
    FACTS
    VISHAY
    TENDER
    EXCHANGE
    DELAWARE
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    SHARES
    TRANSACTION
    MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS
    DIRECTORS
    KING OWYANG
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    DISCLOSURE
    DISCLOSED1
    GLYNDWR SMITH
    DEFENDANTS EVERETT
    LORI LIPCAMAN
    MICHAEL ROSENBERG
    DERIVATIVE CLAIMS
    FITZGERALD
    EVERETT ARNDT
    OPPOSITION
    
           IN THE COURT OF  CHANCERY  OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                       IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
                                    ) PUBLIC VERSION
    
                                    ; CONSOLIDATED
    IN RE SILICONIX INCORPORATED    ) Civil Action No.  18700-NC
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION
                                    i>
    
              ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS EVERETT ARNDT,
             LORI LIPCAMAN, KING  OWYANG,  MICHAEL ROSENBERG
                    AND GLYNDWR SMITH IN OPPOSITION TO
             PLAINTIFFS'  MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    
    
    
    
                                          ASHBY & GEDDES
                                          Lawrence C. Ashby
                                          Richard D. Heins
                                          Philip Trainer, Jr.
                                          Richard I. G. Jones, Jr.
                                          222 Delaware Ave., 1 7th Floor
                                          Wilmington, DE 19899
                                          (302) 654 1888
    
                                          McCUTCHEN DOYLE BROWN
                                            & ENERSEN
                                          David Mark Balabanian, Esquire
                                          Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Jr., Esquire
                                          Jason A. Yurasek,  Esquire
                                          Three Embarcadero Center
                                          San Francisco, CA 94111
                                          (415) 393-2000
    
                                          Attorneys for Defendants Everett Arndt, Lori
                                          Lipcaman, King Owyang, Michael
                                          Rosenberg and Glyndwr Smith
    
    
    
                                                                                                  TABLE
    
    
                                                                                                       
    
    PRELIMINARY STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION
  • ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS EVERETT ARNDT, LORI LIPCAMAN, KING OWYANG, MICHAEL ROSENBERG
  • AND GLYNDWR SMITH IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
  • STATEMENT OF FACTS.
  • Allowing Siliconix Stockholders To Have A Choice.
  • Proposed Transaction Is Wrong,4s A Matter of Law.
  • This Court Does Not Evaluate The Merits Of A Non-Coercive
  • Tender Offer That Has Been Fully Disclosed.
  • `The Exchange Offer Has Been Fully And Completely Disclosed.
  • Plaintiffs Purported Derivative Claims Are Compensable In Money Damages.....25
  • Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., Del.

  • 6 . ANSWERING BRIEF OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    VISHAY
    SILICONIX
    PRELIMINATY
    DEL
    EXCHANGE
    SCHEDULE
    TENDER
    DIRECTORS
    STOCKHOLDERS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    TRANSACTION
    LAW
    DISCLOSURE
    LEHMAN
    MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    SILICONIX BOARD
    POB
    DELAWARE LAW
    FIDUCIARY DUTIES
    OBLIGATION
    FEDERAL LAW
    FITZGERALD
    PLAINTIFFS ASSERT
    OPPOSITION
    MERGER AGREEMENT
    NEGOTIATIONS
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    
                         REDACTED -- PUBLIC VERSION
                IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                              ;-`:,
    
                              IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
                                                                                               /
                                                                                  : ,  ,'
    
                                                                                                    I  
    IN RE SILICONIX  INCORPORATED           )    `2. A. No. 18700-NC              i,                   
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION                 )                                                        ,-1
                                                                                         -,
    
    
    
                        ANSWERING BRIEF OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE
                               IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
                           MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    
    
    
    
    
    OF COIJNSEI,:                                   POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
                                                          Robert K. Payson
    Norman J. Blears                                      Stephen C. Norman.
    Michael L. Charlson                                   Kevin R. Shannon
    Steven G. Mason                                       Matthew E. Fischer..
    HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE LLP                 Rrian C. Ralston
    275 Middlefield Road                                  1313 Market Street
    Menlo Park, California 94025-3506                     Hercules Plaza, 6'h Floor
    (650) 324-7000                                        P.O. Box 95 1
                                                          Wilmington, Delaware 19899-095 1
                                                          (302) 984-6000
    
                                                          Attorneys for Defendant
    Dated: June  13,200l                                  Mark Segall
    
    472286v6
    
    
    
                                                                                         TABLE, OF
    
    
    
    PRELIMINARY STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . .."...................... 1
    
    STATEMENT OF FACTS . . .
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • ANSWERING BRIEF OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE
  • IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
  • MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
  • Vishay's Unilateral Tender (Offer.
  • The Schedule 14D-9
  • The Siliconix Directors Have Complied With All
  • Under Delaware Law, The Siliconix Directors
  • Respect To The Exchange Offer ."...._....."......................................
  • Out Their Duties Under Federal Law.
  • Directors Satisfied Their Fiduciary Duties.
  • The Entire Fairness Test Does Not Apply Because Vishay
  • Does Not Stand On 130th Sides Of The Transaction.
  • Plaintiffs' Disclosure Claims Are Without Merit
  • The Valuation of Siliconix by Lehman.
  • In re Arkla Exploration Company Shareholders Litigath, Del.

  • 7 . PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SILICONIX
    STOCKHOLDERS
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    PRICE
    TRANSACTION
    MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS
    EXCHANGE
    PROSPECTS
    SILICOMX
    DEL
    TENDER
    STOCK
    INADEQUATE
    DELAWARE
    DISCLOSURE
    GROSSLY INADEQUATE
    MATERIALS
    REGISTRATION STATEMENT
    FIDUCIARY DUTIES
    DIRECTORS
    DEMONSTRAMD
    DEFENDANTS
    PLAINTIFFS
    EXCHANGE RATIO
    DISCLOSURE VIOLATIONS
    PROJECTIONS
    FITZGERALD
    PROPOSALS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    
                IN  THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    
                               IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
                                                                                             8  c
                                                                                <.           _.
                                                                                -, .  2
    IN RE SILICONIX  INCORPORATED            1       Consolidated               -,  Id
                                                                                      -d:
    SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION                  )       C.A. No. 18700
    
    
    
    
                                    REDACTED
    
                       PLAINTIFFS' OPENING  BRIEF   IN SUPPORT OF
                     THE MOTION FOR A  PRELIMINARY   INJUNCTION
                                                                       _I-
    
    
    
    
    
    Steven G Schulman                             Kevin G. Abrams
    Daniel B Scotti                               Srinivas M. Raju
    U Seth Ottensoser                             J. Travis Laster
    Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes                   Lisa R. Stark
    & Lerach  LLP                                 Richards, Layton & Finger
    One Pennsyivania  Plaza                       One Rodney Square
    New York, N.Y. 10119                          P.O. Box 55 1
    (212) 594-5300                                Wilmington, Delaware 19899
                                                  (302) 658-6541
    
                                                  Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiff and the
    Dated: June 11, 2001                          Class
    
    
    
    
    
    RLFI-23170944
    
    
    
                                                TABLIE OF CONTENTS
    
    
    T.kEiLE  O F   A U T H O R I T I E S                                                           iii
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • PLAINTIFFS' OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
  • Undervalued And That Siliconix Has Excellent Financial Prospects.
  • Siliconix Private At A Grossly Inadequate Price.
  • III VISHAY CANNOT PROVE THAT THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION OFFERS A FAIR PRICE.
  • Breached Its Fiduciary Duties In Responding To The
  • PLAINTIFF HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE SILICOMX
  • MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS w-m SUFFER IRREPARABLE
  • Barkan v `bmsted Indus., Inc., Del.
  • tender offer and potential second-step merger all outst;mdq shares ofS,hcomv
  • In collusion &ith the mterested members of the Silicorux board of directors,
  • Vlshay prompted the Silicomx Board to estabhsh a sham special committee (the "Special
  • by Vlshay l7almond Fitzgerald, the owner of more than $4 nullioa of Sihcorux's stock, Jomed
  • realized the window of opportunity to eluninate Silicon&s minonty shareholders at a grossly
  • 25, 200 1, Vishay formally launched an exchange offer and proposed a
  • already Id n13t own at the plainly u&air exchange ratio of 1.5 Vishay shares for each
  • On "May 3 1, 2001, Fitzgerald filed a comprehensive amended complaint to enjoin the
  • along with the ma.teriaIIy false and misleading materials that have been
  • Defendant Vishay IS a Delaware corporanon headquartered in Malvem,
  • The individual defendants are Felix Zandman and the seven
  • `References to the Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement filed by Vishay are hereby
  • tnadequate proposals.
  • to breach theu fiducutry duty of full disclosure by making matenal rmsrepresmtatlons
  • underlymg "numerous assumptions" used to generate these projections.

  • 8 . AMENDED COMPLIANT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    VISHAY
    MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS
    DEFENDANTS
    PLAINTIFF
    EXCHANGE
    PRICE
    ZANDMAN
    PROPOSED TRANSACTION
    STOCK
    ACQUISITION
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE
    REGISTRATION STATEMENT
    SEGALL
    TALBERT
    SEMICONDUCTOR
    NET INCOME
    TECHNOLOGY
    EXCHANGE RATIO
    FIDUCIARY DUTIES
    SILICONIX BOARD
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    MARKET PRICE
    CONNECTION
    EVERETT ARNDT
    LORI LIPCAMAN
    GLYNDWR SMITH
    EXPERIENCING
    SILICONIX COMMON STOCK
    PROJECTIONS
    
                      IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE  ST14TE OF DELAWARE                              
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                       
                                   IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY                                      7,
                                                                                                    -0
                                                                                                 _`1 , 
                                                                                                 ;.--, 
     IN RE SILICONIX INCORPORATED                            Consolidated                        :  .- 
                                                                                            f
     SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION                                 CA. No. 18700                             
                                                                                            --^        
    
                                  VERIFIED  AMENDEJ  COMP'LAINT                            E.3
                                                                                           5.          
                                                                                                       
                                                                                           -e.         
               Lead Plaintiff Raymond  L.. Fitzgerald ("Plaintiff' or "Fitzgerald"), by  his?md&igned
    
     attorneys, brings this action against defendants Vishay  Intertechnology,  Inc., Vishay  TEMlC
    
     Semiconductor Acquisition Holdings Corp., Felix Zandman,  Everett Arndt,  Lori Lipcaman, Ring
    
     Owyang, Michael Rosenberg, Mark Segall, Glyndwr Smith, Timothy  Talbert,  and Siliconix
    
     incorporated.' :In support thereof, plaintiff states as follows:
    
               1.      Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the minority stockholders of Siliconix
    
     incorporated ("Siliconix" or the "Company") and on behalf of Siliconix, a  successfil  high
    
     technology company that has experienced a fourteen thousand five hundred and seventy-nine
    
     (14,579%) percent increase in net income during the past two years and is extremely  well-
    
     positioned for rapid growth in the very near future:. Ever since Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.
    
     ("Vishay") purchased an 80.4% equity interest in Siliconix in  ea.rly  199X, Vishay has treated
    
     Siliconix not as a separate, public company, but rather as a private wholly-owned subsidiary. Now,
    
     just as Siliconix and its minority stockholders are expecting to reap the rewards from the
    
     exceptional incteasing  trends in net income and the improving business outlook of Siliconix and
    
     its markets, Vishay has abruptly sought to usurp for itself, to the exclusion of the Siliconix
    
     stockholders, the anticipated increase in the value of Siliconix by seeking to take Siliconix
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Fitzgerald ("Plaintiff' or "Fitzgerald"), by his?md&igned
  • attorneys, brings this action against defendants Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., Vishay TEMlC
  • Semiconductor Acquisition Holdings Corp., Felix Zandman, Everett Arndt, Lori Lipcaman, Ring
  • Owyang, Michael Rosenberg, Mark Segall, Glyndwr Smith, Timothy Talbert, and Siliconix
  • Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the minority stockholders of Siliconix
  • percent increase in net income during the past two years and is extremely wellpositioned for
  • through an unfair and grossly inadequate exchange offer and freeze-out merger.
  • and temporarily depressed stock price.
  • Siliconix board have now simply side-stepped the sham Special Committee review that was
  • Vishay has now admitted that the two members of the Special Committee
  • As demonstrated below, defendants' respective actions,
  • proposed transaction, other than defendants and their affiliates.
  • Defendant Vishay TEMIC Semiconductor Acquisition Holdings Corp.
  • The individual defendants are constituted of Felix
  • Defendant Everett Arndt is a Director of Siliconix.
  • Defendant Mark Segall is a Director of Siliconix.
  • Vishay in connection with the acquisition by Vishay of other companies.
  • Siliconix also uses its advanced technology and applications expertise to develop value added
  • owe the minority stockholders of Siliconix the highest fiduciary duties
  • the Company's stock price to reach a high of $165 per share in March 2000.
  • only 17.5% of the 52 week high for Siliconix common stock of $165 per share.
  • The Announcement was intentionally designed to manipulate the market price of
  • Exchange Ratio represents a fair price to the Siliconix minority stockholders.
  • Vishay admits in the Registration Statement that Vishay's decision in February 2001 to
  • and Siliconix was already experiencing a "bottoming up" and
  • assumptions used to generate these projections.

  • 9 . LETTER FROM CHANCELLOR NOBLE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    REQUEST
    FITZGERALD
    DISCOVERY
    CLASS ACTIONS
    COURT
    COUNSEL
    LEAD PLAINTIFF
    COMMUNICATIONS
    SILICONIX
    SHAREHOLDERS
    GPM
    REPRESENTING
    MOTION
    DESIGNATION
    DEFENDANTS
    INQUIRY
    LITIGATION
    INTERROGATORY
    VISHAY
    PROSECUTION
    WEISS
    SUPPORT
    HOLDINGS
    EVIDENCING
    CONSIDERATIONS
    RETAINER AGREEMENT
    REASONS
    CAPTION
    PRESUMPTION
    
                                             COURT OF  CHANCERY          .,
                                                   OF THE
                                             STATE OF  DELAWARE
    
    
                                                                                       417 S. STATE
    JOHN  W.  NOBLE                                                                 DOVER. DELAWARE
    "CE CHANCELLOR                                                                 TELEPHONE
                                                                                             (302)
                                                                                    hCSlMlLE (302)
                                               May 23,200l
    
    
    
                                                                    VIA FACSIMILE AND
                                                                     FIRST CLASS MAIL
    
    
    
            Kevin G. A.brams, Esquire                         Norman M. Monhait, Esquire
            Srinivas M. Raju, Esquire                         ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT,
            RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER                          GROSS & GODDESS, P.A.
            One Rodney Square                                 Mellon Bank Center, #140 1
            P.O. Box 55 1                                     P.O. Box 1070
            Wilmington, DE 19899-055 1                        Wilmington, DE 19899-l 070
    
    
                       Re: In re Siliconix Incorporated
                             Shareholders Litigation
                             Consolidated
                             C.A. No. 18700-NC
    
            Dear Counsel:
    
                       Ten actions, purportedly brought as class actions, challenging the
            proposed merger of Siliconix Incorporated  I("Siliconix")  into Vishay
            Intertechnology, Inc. ("Vishay") have been filed in this Court and have been
            consolidated. The Plaintiffs in nine of these actions, including Griffin
            Portfolio Management Corp.  ("GPM"),  are represented by the law firms of
            Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross  & Goddess, P.A. and  MXberg Weiss Bershad
            Hynes  &  Lerach LLP (collectively referred to as "Milberg Weiss"). One
    
    
    
    Kevin G. Abrams, Esquire                                                 May 23,200 1
    Norman M. Monhait, Esquire                                                       Page  2
    
    
    plaintiff, Raymond L. Fitzgerald ("Fitzgerald"), is represented by the law
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Ten actions, purportedly brought as class actions, challenging the proposed merger of
  • The Plaintiffs in nine of these actions, including Griffin Portfolio Management Corp., are
  • Fitzgerald has moved to be appointed lead plaintiff and for the appo-intment of RL&F as lead
  • but it has not requested to be appointed lead plaintiff or that its counsel be designated as
  • In an effort to gather the information that it claims is needed to oppose effectively the
  • and defendants;
  • The identity of Siliconix shareholders who support Fitzgerald's
  • Documents confirming Fitzgerald's holdings of Siliconix and
  • Siliconix' senior management, notes of such communications
  • Whether this tradition is undergoing fundamental change remains to be seen, but the difficult
  • When the inquiry is factual, the competing parties need a means of gathering the facts that
  • the scope of discovery in this context is necessarily restricted b:y several considerations.
  • Describe by caption, court and date all class actions that you have prosecuted or defended as
  • The PSLRA also provides that "discovery relating to whether a member or members of the
  • Thus, under the federal system, a plaintiff competing for the status of lead plaintiff must
  • Again, for the reasons set forth immediately above, Fitzgerald shall provide an estimate of a
  • Interrogatory No. 4: Identify by name and address the individuals or entities who to your
  • Similarly, if RL&F turns over its retainer agreement, I also am directing Milberg Weiss to
  • Document Request No. 2: All confirmations of your purchases and sales of stock in Siliconix
  • All brokerage statements evidencing your current holdings of Siliconix and Vishay stock.
  • Given the narrow and arguably appropriate purpose (i.e., vigor of prosecution of the action)

  • 10 . COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    VISHAY
    DEFENDANTS
    STOCK
    POWER
    PRICE
    MEMBERS
    PLAINTIFF
    PUBLICLV-HELD
    PROPOSED TRANSACTION
    SHARES
    CONTROL
    SEMICONDUCTOR
    ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS
    STOCKHOLDERS
    SHAREHOLDERS
    BUSINESS
    MARKET
    DIRECTORS
    UNFAIR
    TECHNOLOGY
    COMMON STOCK
    DESIGN
    ANALOG
    INTEGRATED CIRCUITS
    GROWTH
    INADEQUATE
    PRESIDENT
    CELL PHONES
    EPS
    
                       IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    a                                   IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
    
         GRIFFIN PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT CORP.,                             x
    
                                          Plaintiff,
    
    
    
         SILICONIX INCORPORATED, VISHAY
         INTERTECHNOLOGY, INC., MICHAEL A.
         ROSENBERG, MARK B. SEGALL, KING OWYANG ;
         PHD, EVERETT ARNDT, LORI LIPCAMAN and
         GLYNDWR SMITH,
                                          Defendants.
                                                                         ?(
    
                                                        COMPLAINT
    
                 Plaintiff alleges upon personal knowledge with respect to paragraph 2, and upon
    
         and belief as to all oth,er  allegations herein, as follows:
    
                 1.      Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the public stockholders of Siliconix
    
         Incorporated ("Siliconix" or the "Company"), against its directors, the above-named individual
    
         defendants, and defendant Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. ("Vishay")., the controlling
    
         Siliconix, in connection with  V&hay's proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of
    
         Siliconix common stock.
    
                                                         PARTIES
    
                 2.      Plaintiff Griffin Portfolio Management Corp. is and at all relevant times has
    
         owner, directly or indirectly, beneficially or otherwise, of 65,913 shares of Siliconix common
    
    
    
           3.      Siliconix is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at
    
    2201 Laurelwood Road, Santa Clara, CA 950.54. Siliconix  designis,  markets, and manufactures
    
    power and analog semicondutor products.
    
           4.      (4      Defendant Vishay is an international manufacturer and supplier of discrete
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • SILICONIX INCORPORATED, VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY, INC., MICHAEL A. ROSENBERG, MARK B. SEGALL,
  • Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the public stockholders of Siliconix
  • Incorporated, against its directors, the above-named individual
  • owner, directly or indirectly, beneficially or otherwise, of 65,913 shares of Siliconix
  • passive electronic components and discrete active electronic components, particularly
  • Vishay and its affiliates now own and control, directly and indirectly,
  • dealing to the public shareholders of Siliconix.
  • (4 Defendants Michael A. Rosenberg, Mark B. Segall, King Owyang,
  • defendant Lipcaman is Senior Vice President and Controller of Vishay and defendant
  • The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
  • Siliconix designs, markets, and manufactures power and analog semiconductor
  • Siliconix can be divided into two general classes: discrete devices and integrated circuits.
  • Because of the lines of business engaged in by Siliconix,
  • Siliconix uses its advanced technology and applications expertise to develop value-added
  • The first type, represented by the communications and computer markets, exhibits design
  • The other type, represemed by the automotive market, exhibits long design cycles, sometimes
  • Participation in both tvpes of businesses helps the Company balance growth opportunities with
  • Minimizing the board space required by power semiconductors is crucial to enabling new
  • Publiclv-Held Shares At Inadequate Price
  • day before the announcement of the proposed transaction.
  • EPS and 27.10 times their 2001 estimated EPS.
  • Vishay and the class members is unequal, making it grossly and inherently unfair for Vishay to
  •    |