Case Page


Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/15/2002 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 25, 2000

On November 15, 2002, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order by U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton approving the settlement and dismissing the case. The Court further entered the Orders by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton awarding representative plaintiff's counsel reimbursement of expenses and approving the plan of allocation of settlement proceeds. According to Cadence Design Systems, Inc.’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2002, Cadence paid $1.25 million to settle the action.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of §14(d)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that as an integral part of the Tender Offer, Cadence agreed to pay and did pay OrCAD's Chairman and CEO as well as 4 other senior executives (collectively referred to as the "OrCAD Insiders") additional consideration of more than $1.5 million beyond the $13 per share paid to Cadence's other shareholders. Thus, in addition to receiving $13 per share which was paid to plaintiff and other OrCAD shareholders for tendering their shares, pursuant to the Tender Offer, certain senior officers and directors of OrCAD were offered and/or paid additional consideration as an inducement to tender their own OrCAD shares and to support the Tender Offer.


Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: OCAD
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data

"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 00-CV-00658
JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
DATE FILED: 02/25/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/16/1999
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
    100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 ·
  3. Richard D. Kranich
    531 Main Street, Suite 407, Richard D. Kranich, NY 10044-0107
    212.608.8965 ·
No Document Title Filing Date