According to the law firm press release, Mentor Graphics develops, manufactures and distributes electronic design automation (“EDA”) products – computer software and emulation hardware systems – worldwide, primarily to large companies in the communications, computer, consumer electronics, semiconductor, networking, multimedia, military and aerospace, and transportation industries.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Mentor Graphics’ business and prospects, including that: (a) Mentor Graphics’ customers were delaying or declining extended license agreements or demanding price concessions from the Company due to the unprecedented level of mergers and acquisitions in 2015 and earlier; (b) demand for Mentor Graphics’ emulation products had slowed as a result of the anticipated introduction of competitive products, notwithstanding defendants’ assertions that it would be a long time before any competitor could release a competitive virtual emulation product; and (c) early customer contract renewals and related bookings had the effect of moving expected bookings and revenue from future periods to earlier periods, and were not, as defendants reported, a sign that demand was strong and increasing. As a result of these false and misleading statements and/or omissions, Mentor Graphics common stock traded at artificially inflated prices of over $27 per share during the Class Period.
On July 11, 2016, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on August 10. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend by the Court on August 23, 2017.
An amended Complaint was filed on October 18, 2017. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on December 6. On July 27, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Lead Plaintiff filed a Notice appealing the Court's dismissal on August 17. On December 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an Order affirming the decision of the District Court.