Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/27/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 13, 2005

The original Complaint alleges that Magma and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Magma faced the serious risk of infringing on intellectual property rights of competitor Synopsys because inventions that were critical to Magma's business, and which were patented by Magma, were designed by Magma's chief scientist while employed by Synopsys. Defendants aggressively denounced the allegations, characterizing them as completely baseless. While Magma's stock price was artificially inflated, insiders sold 4,436,163 shares of common stock reaping gross proceeds of $82,385,174.

The complaint further alleges that on or around April 13, 2005, the market learned that Magma's Chief Scientist admitted, in a sworn declaration filed in the Synopsys infringement action, that inventions covered by two of Magma's patents were conceived by him while he was employed by Synopsys and that his supervisor at Magma, and likely others, knew that the inventions covered by the patents were conceived by him at Synopsis and were encompassed by an agreement with Synopsis granting Synopsis the rights to those inventions. On this news, Magma's stock plummeted 40.7%, from $9.42 per share on April 12, 2005 to $5.58 per share on April 13, 2005.

Also included are all those who acquired Magma's shares through its acquisitions of Majave, Random Logic, Aplus Design or Silicon Metrics.

As summarized by the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended February 1, 2009, on June 13, 2005, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit captioned The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust vs. Magma Design Automation, Inc., Rajeev Madhavan, Gregory C. Walker and Roy E. Jewell., No. C 05 02394, was filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose information regarding the risk of Magma infringing intellectual property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages. In March 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a further amended complaint in June 2006, which defendants again moved to dismiss. Defendants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part by an order dated August 18, 2006, which dismissed claims against two of the individual defendants. On November 30, 2007, the parties agreed to a settlement. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 7, 2008. On December 5, 2008, the court held a hearing on final approval of the settlement and requested that plaintiff submit additional information, including information on claims by class members.

On March 27, 2009, the Court entered the Order by Judge Charles R. Breyer. According to the Order, the settlement, in the amount of $13.5 million in cash, is finally approved and the Court grants the motion for attorney fees and expenses. The Court grants the reimbursement of $945,345.69 in costs, grants reimbursement of Lead Plaintiff Frank Weiler in the amount of $32,600 and grants Plaintiffs’ Counsel twenty percent of the remaining net settlement fund in attorneys’ fees.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LAVA
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 #: 05-CV-02394
JUDGE: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
DATE FILED: 06/13/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/23/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/12/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (SF)
    455 Market Street, Suite 1810, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (SF), CA 94105
    415.972.81 415.972-816 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
    355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP , CA 90071
    213.617.9007 213.617.9185 · info@milbergweiss.com
  3. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 05-CV-02394
JUDGE: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
DATE FILED: 06/29/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/23/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/12/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
    355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP , CA 90071
    213.617.9007 213.617.9185 · info@milbergweiss.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
No Document Title Filing Date