Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/02/2018 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: January 09, 2018

According to the Complaint, Barracuda designs and delivers security and data protection solutions. The Company
offers cloud-enabled solutions that address security threats, improve network performance, and protect and store data. Barracuda’s platform incorporates subscription-based security and data protection solutions that are connected to its cloud services, which enable continuous software updates, offsite redundancy and distributed capacity. The Company’s solutions are delivered as cloud-enabled appliances and virtual appliances, as well as public cloud and Software-as-a-Servicebased solutions.

On November 27, 2017, Barracuda issued a press release announcing it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) to sell Barracuda to Thoma Bravo for $27.55 in cash per Barracuda common share (the “Merger Consideration”). The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $1.6 billion.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants filed a materially incomplete and misleading Proxy Statement with
the SEC and disseminated it to Barracuda’s stockholders, and that the Proxy Statement misrepresents or omits material information that is necessary for the Company’s stockholders to make an informed decision whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on April 2, 2018.


Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: CUDA
Company Market: New York SE
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 #: 18-CV-00191
JUDGE: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
DATE FILED: 01/09/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/09/2018
  1. WeissLaw LLP (Beverly Hills)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available