According to the complaint, the defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (a) MaxLinear, Inc. (“MaxLinear”) had decided it would not consummate a business combination with Silicon Motion (the “Merger”) because the economic circumstances surrounding the Merger had materially changed, including a material downturn in the semiconductor industry and rising interest rates; (b) MaxLinear had determined to unilaterally terminate the Merger in the event the Merger was approved by China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (“SAMR”); (c) MaxLinear intended to argue that certain conditions in Article 6 of the Merger Agreement had not been satisfied as required by May 5, 2023 (i.e., before the Class Period) as a basis to terminate the Merger; and (d) as a result of (a)-(c) above, defendants had materially misrepresented the viability of the Merger, the purported benefits of the Merger, and the likelihood that the Merger would be consummated.