EQS-News: ROSEN, A TRUSTED AND LEADING LAW FIRM, Encourages ON Semiconductor Corporation Investors to Secure Counsel Before Important Deadline in Securities Class Action - ON

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about onsemi’s business and operations. Specifically, defendants misrepresented that: (1) revenues from billions of dollars in reported long-term supply agreements (“LTSAs”) were “committed” and “locked in,” and were effectively certain to be obtained by onsemi when, in fact, onsemi could and would abrogate the LTSAs at a customer’s request; (2) LTSAs provided “predictable” and “sustainable” performance to drive onsemi’s growth, even in tough macroeconomic conditions, when, in fact, they would be modified or eliminated as conditions changed; and (3) defendants had “good visibility” into customer demand when, in fact, demand could be reduced on short notice, even where LTSAs were in effect. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.