LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

7. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

 On or about November 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie Attias v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572, and, on or about November 21, 2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related class action lawsuit in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750 (jointly, the "Class Actions").  The Complaints in the Class Actions, which were consolidated under the caption In re Anadigics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:08-cv-05572, by an Order of the District Court dated November 24, 2008, seek unspecified damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions in connection with, among other things, Anadigics's manufacturing capabilities and the demand for its products.  On October 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, (the "First Amended Complaint"), which names the Company, a current officer and a former officer-director, and alleges a proposed class period that runs from July 24, 2007 through August 7, 2008.  On December 23, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint; that motion was fully briefed as of March 30, 2010.  After holding extensive oral argument on defendants' motion on August 3, 2010, the District Court found plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint to be deficient, but afforded them another opportunity to amend their pleading.  The District Court therefore denied defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to defendants' renewing the motion in response to plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on October 4, 2010.  The Second Amended Complaint, which contains the same substantive claims that were alleged in the First Amended Complaint, alleges a proposed class period that runs from February 12, 2008 through August 7, 2008.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on December 3, 2010.  By an Opinion and an Order dated September 30, 2011, the District Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.  On October 27, 2011, plaintiffs filed with the District Court a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from the District Court's September 30, 2011 Opinion and Order. The appeal is pending.

 On or about January 14, 2009, a shareholder's derivative lawsuit, captioned Sicari v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-88-09, was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, and, on or about February 2, 2009, a related shareholder's derivative lawsuit, captioned Moradzadeh v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-198-09, was filed in the same court (jointly, the "Derivative Lawsuits").  The Derivative Lawsuits seek unspecified damages for alleged state law claims against certain of the Company's current and former directors arising out of the matters at issue in the Class Actions.  By Order dated March 6, 2009, the New Jersey Superior Court consolidated the Derivative Lawsuits under the caption In re Anadigics, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. SOM-L-88-09.  By Order dated March 27, 2009, the Superior Court stayed the Derivative Lawsuits pending disposition of the defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the Class Actions.  By Order dated September 13, 2010, the Superior Court extended the stay of the Derivative Lawsuits until the disposition of defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Class Actions.

 Because the Class Actions and the Derivative Lawsuits, which are in a preliminary stage, do not specify alleged monetary damages, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, to the Company in connection therewith.

 The Company is also a party to ordinary course litigation arising out of the operation of our business. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of such ordinary course litigation should not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.