<PAGE>
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
------------------------
AMENDMENT NO. 16
TO SCHEDULE 14D-1
TENDER OFFER STATEMENT
(PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(D)(1) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934)
QUICKTURN DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC.
(Name of Subject Company)
MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION
MGZ CORP.
(Bidders)
COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $.001 PER SHARE
(including the Associated Rights)
(Title of Class of Securities)
74838E102
(CUSIP Number of Class of Securities)
------------------------
WALDEN C. RHINES
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION
8005 S.W. BOECKMAN ROAD
WILSONVILLE, OREGON 97070-7777
(503) 685-1200
(Name, Address and Telephone Number of Persons Authorized
to Receive Notices and Communications on Behalf of Bidders)
COPY TO:
JOHN J. HUBER, ESQ. CHRISTOPHER L. KAUFMAN, ESQ.
LATHAM & WATKINS LATHAM & WATKINS
1001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. 75 WILLOW ROAD
WASHINGTON, DC 20004 MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025
(202) 637-2200 (650) 328-4600
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>
MGZ Corp., a Delaware corporation ("Purchaser"), and Mentor Graphics
Corporation, an Oregon corporation ("Parent"), hereby amend and supplement their
Tender Offer Statement on Schedule 14D-1 filed on August 12, 1998 (the
"Statement"), as amended, with respect to the offer by Purchaser to purchase all
outstanding shares of Common Stock, par value $.001 per share, of Quickturn
Design Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, for a purchase price of $12.125
per share, net to the seller in cash, without interest thereon, as set forth in
this Amendment No. 16. Capitalized terms used herein and not defined have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Statement.
ITEM 10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
Item 10(f) of the Statement is hereby amended and supplemented by the
following:
1. On October 16, 1998, the Company filed a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit (a)(32) and is incorporated herein by reference.
2. On October 19, 1998, Parent issued a press release, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit (a)(33) and is incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 11. MATERIAL TO BE FILED AS EXHIBITS.
(a)(32) Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by the Company with the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, dated October 16, 1998.
(a)(33) Press Release dated October 19, 1998.
2
<PAGE>
SIGNATURES
After due inquiry and to the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that
the information set forth in this statement is true, complete and correct.
<TABLE>
<S> <C> <C>
Dated: October 19, 1998 MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION
By: /s/ GREGORY K. HINCKLEY
--------------------------------------
Name Gregory K. Hinckley
Title: Executive Vice President, Chief Operating
Officer and Chief Financial Officer
MGZ CORP.
By: /s/ GREGORY K. HINCKLEY
--------------------------------------
Name: Gregory K. Hinckley
Title: Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
</TABLE>
3
<PAGE>
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
)
MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, an )
Oregon Corporation, and MGZ CORP.,a )
Delaware Corporation, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) C.A. No. 16584
)
v. )
)
QUICKTURN DESIGN SYSTEM, INC., A )
Delaware Corporation, KEITH R. LOBO, )
GLEN M. ANTLE, RICHARD C. )
ALBERDING, MICHAEL R. D'AMOUR, )
YEN-SON (PAUL) HUANG, DR. DAVID K. )
LAM, WILLIAM A. HASLER AND )
CHARLES D. KISSNER, )
)
Defendants. )
)
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Defendants Quickturn Design Systems, Inc. ("Quickturn" or the "Company"),
Keith R. Lobo, Glen M. Antle, Richard C. Alberding, Michael R. D'Amour, Yen-Son
(Paul) Huang, Dr. David K. Lam, William A. Hasler, and Charles D. Kissner, by
and through their undersigned counsel, hereby move the Court pursuant to Court
of Chancery Rule 65, for an order, in the form attached hereto, preliminarily
enjoining plaintiffs Mentor Graphics Corp. and MGZ Corp. (collectively,
"Mentor") from holding or purporting to hold a special meeting of Quickturn
shareholders on October 29, 1998. The grounds for this motion are as follows:
BACKGROUND
On August 12, 1998, after months of preparation and at a time when
Quickturn's stock was trading near its all-time low, Mentor launched its hostile
tender offer for Quickturn's stock. On August 21, 1998, Quickturn's board of
directors amended its bylaws to provide that, upon request of stockholders to
call a special meeting, the board shall determine a place and time for the
meeting, which time shall be between 90 and 100 days after the date on which the
board determines that the meeting was properly requested (the "Meeting Bylaw").
On September 11, 1998, acting pursuant to the "agent designations" it had
<PAGE>
solicited, Mentor purported to demand a special meeting of Quickturn's
stockholders. The same day, before Quickturn had any opportunity to review the
"agent designations", Mentor purported to notice a meeting of Quickturn's
stockholders for October 29 -- in plain and admitted violation of the Meeting
Bylaw. On October 1, 1998, in full compliance with the Meeting Bylaw, Quickturn
announced that its Board had noticed the special meeting of stockholders for
January 8, 1999.
Recognizing that its choice of a meeting date would be contrary to the
Meeting Bylaw, Mentor amended its complaint in this action to challenge the
validity of the Meeting Bylaw. On August 26, 1998, Mentor moved for entry of a
preliminary injunction enjoining Quickturn and its directors from enforcing the
Meeting Bylaw. At Mentor's request, the Court scheduled a hearing on its motion
for a preliminary injunction for October 7, 1998. At Mentor's further request,
that hearing date was subsequently vacated and an expedited trial scheduled.
The trial to determine the validity of the Meeting Bylaw, and an amendment
to Quickturn's rights plan, is now scheduled for a trial to be held over five
days between October 19 and October 28, 1998. It is apparent that the Court
will likely not be in a position to decide this matter before Mentor's October
29, 1998 purported meeting date, and it is a certainty that the Court will not
be able to decide this matter in time for stockholders to receive notice of the
Court's decision sufficiently in advance of the October 29 date to consider the
Court's decision in determining how to vote. Thus, there are now two notices of
the same meeting, for different times and different places, and the
determination of which notice is legally valid cannot occur until, at the
earliest, the day before Mentor's purported October 29 meeting.
The present situation, in which two meetings are proceeding in parallel
to different meeting dates, is inherently confusing to stockholders, and (not
surprisingly), many stockholders have already been confused -- some
stockholders believe that the meeting is proceeding on January 8, while
others believe it is proceeding on October 29. See Affidavit of Joseph J.
Morrow Paragraph 6. In addition, for the reasons explained below, the threat
that a meeting may proceed on October 29 will, unless corrected by the Court,
force Quickturn to solicit proxies for an October 29 date, even though the
October 29 date is facially contrary to Quickturn's Bylaws
2
<PAGE>
and even though Quickturn believes that the October 29 date has no legal
validity.
ARGUMENT
I. A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT STOCKHOLDER CONFUSION
AND PREJUDICE TO QUICKTURN.
A. STOCKHOLDERS ARE CONFUSED BY THE EXISTENCE OF TWO MEETING DATES.
The simultaneous scheduling of two different dates and places for
the same meeting of stockholders is obviously confusing to stockholders.
Stockholders do not know when the meeting will occur, where the meeting will
occur, or when they have to return their proxies. Morrow Aff. Paragraph 7.
Moreover, one must assume that Mentor is deliberately creating this
confusion. Mentor surely knows that is October 29 date is contrary to the
Meeting Bylaw; indeed, that is why Mentor sought, and obtained, this Court's
agreement to hold a full trial on the merits of Mentor's claims between
October 10 and 28 -- before the meeting. Yet Mentor has not sought any type
of interim relief from this Court; to the contrary, Mentor dropped its claim
for a preliminary injunction against Quickturn's bylaw. Recognizing that the
status quo is the existence of the bylaw, there can be no question that
Mentor's claim to call a meeting on October 29 is false.
Plainly, Mentor's decision to press ahead with its legally invalid
meeting is confusing to stockholders. Morrow Aff. Paragraph 5-7. Since no
one knows if the Court will ultimately uphold the Meeting Bylaw, until this
Court issues its ruling after trial, no one can know for certain whether
Mentor's October 29 meeting can lawfully proceed. Id. at 7. Pressing toward
a legally dubious October 29 meeting at the same time that the Court is
considering the legal status of that meeting appeared deliberately designed
to confuse stockholders and unquestionably has had that effect. Id.
Paragraph 5-7. Absent relief by the court, Mentor's actions will further
confuse stockholders as the October 29 date approaches.
B. QUICKTURN IS PREJUDICED BY THE EXISTENCE OF THE PURPORTED OCTOBER 29
MEETING DATE.
Mentor's plan to go forward with its October 29 meeting, despite the
absence of any court ruling in advance of that meeting as to its validity, also
prejudices Quickturn.
3
<PAGE>
Quickturn believes that the October 29 meeting date is invalid. However, absent
relief from this Court, Mentor's actions will force Quickturn to solicit proxies
for the October 29 meeting, since it will have no way of knowing with certainty,
until the Court issues its post-trial ruling, that the October 29 meeting is
invalid. Even though Quickturn believes it overwhelming likely that the Meeting
Bylaw will be upheld, it simply cannot bet the company on this result. As long
as there is even a minuscule possibility that a meeting can proceed on October
29, Quickturn must solicit proxies for such a meeting. The alternative -- to
cede the field to Mentor and not even provide stockholders with the benefit of
the Company's views -- would be irresponsible.
The whole purpose of expediting this matter was to allow the parties
and the stockholders to know, PRIOR TO ANY VOTE, of the validity of the Meeting
Bylaw and the amendments to Quickturn's rights plan. If resolution of the
validity of the Meeting Bylaw prior to a vote were not required, an expedited
hearing on this issue would not have been scheduled. Instead, Mentor could have
convened its meeting and, if necessary, the validity of the meeting could have
been addressed in a subsequent action under Section 225. Having accepted
Mentor's argument that pre-meeting relief is necessary, and having scheduled a
preliminary injunction hearing, and subsequently an expedited trial, at Mentor's
request, the Court should not now permit Mentor to proceed with a meeting on the
eve of a decision by the Court that will resolve the confusion that Mentor has
created by its actions.
To permit Mentor to now proceed to an October 29 special shareholder
meeting will cause irreparable injury to Quickturn and its shareholders because
it will cause Quickturn to have to gear its efforts to an October 29 meeting
date, regardless of the legal validity of that date, and will confuse
stockholders and cause them to cast votes before the validity of the October 29
meeting has been determined. The appropriate remedy for this injury is to
enjoin Mentor for proceeding with the purported October 29 meeting until this
Court has issued its ruling.
II. MENTOR'S OCTOBER 29 MEETING HAS BEEN NOTICED IN VIOLATION OF
QUICKTURN'S BYLAWS AND SECTION 211 (A) OF THE DELAWARE GENERAL
CORPORATION LAW.
On September 11, Mentor sent to Quickturn's stockholders a "Notice of
Special Meeting of Stockholders of Quickturn Design Systems, Inc. to be held on
October 29, 1998" (the
4
<PAGE>
"Notice") and its Proxy Statement (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
A). The Notice and Proxy Statement purport to call a special meeting of
Quickturn's stockholders to "be held at 3 p.m. New York City time, on October
29, 1998 at The Corporation Trust Company, 30 The Green, Dover, Delaware 19901"
to consider various proposals set forth in the Notice. (emphasis added). The
Notice is invalid under the Quickturn's bylaws and Delaware law because the
special meeting location was not designated by Quickturn's board of directors
and is not noticed to be held at the Company's "registered office" in Delaware.
Section 211(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law provides that
stockholders meetings "may be held at such place, either within or without this
State, as may be designated by or in the manner provided in the bylaws OR, IF
NOT SO DESIGNATED, AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION IN THIS STATE."
(emphasis added). In the absence of a contrary designation in the certificate
of incorporation or bylaws, Delaware law is clear that stockholders "meetings
must be held at the corporation's registered office in Delaware." D. Drexler,
L. Black & A. Sparks, III, DELAWARE CORPORATION LAW AND PRACTICE Section 24.02,
at 24-2-3 (1997); E. Folk, R. Ward, Jr. & E. Welch, FOLK ON THE DELAWARE GENERAL
CORPORATION LAW Section 211.1 (1998-2 Supp.); R.F. Balotti & J. Finkelstein, THE
DELAWARE LAW OF CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS Section 7.2, at 7-6 (3d
ed. 1998) ("In the absence of a by-law provision specifying the location of the
annual meeting, Section 211(a) of the General Corporation Law provides that the
meeting shall take place at the registered office of the corporation in the
State of Delaware.") Section 2.1 of Quickturn's bylaws provides that
stockholders meetings "shall be held at any place, within or outside the State
of Delaware, designated by the board of directors," and "[i]n the absence of any
such designation, STOCKHOLDERS' MEETINGS SHALL BE HELD AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE
OF THE CORPORATION." (attached hereto as Exhibit B (emphasis added)).
Here, since the Quickturn board did not designate the place of the
special meeting purportedly called by Mentor, Section 211(a) and the bylaws of
the Company require that the meeting be held in the Company's "registered
office" in Delaware. As indicated in Article I of Quickturn's certificate of
incorporation (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C), the "address of the
corporation's registered office in the State of Delaware is 1209 ORANGE STREET,
IN THE CITY
5
<PAGE>
OF WILMINGTON, COUNTY OF NEW CASTLE, DELAWARE 19801," and the "name of its
registered agent at such address is The Corporation Trust Company." (emphasis
added). Thus, Mentor's Notice is invalid since it purports to call a special
meeting of Quickturn's stockholders for an incorrect location -- that is, a
location other than Quickturn's "registered office" in Delaware. SEE MANAGERS
SEC. CO. V. MALLERY, 77 F.2d 186, 191 (3d Cir. 1935) (holding that if the bylaws
require stockholders meetings to take place in Delaware, and the meeting is held
outside the state, that fact is reason for the meting to be deemed ineffective).
Any argument by Mentor that its error (purposeful or inadvertent) in
designating the special meeting for a location other than that of Quickturn's
"registered office" in Delaware is trivial or meaningless and should be
overlooked by this Court must be rejected. Indeed, this Court is not empowered
to disregard a statutory requirement. See Laster v. Waggoner, Del. Ch., C.A.
No. 11185, Jacobs, V.C. (Mar. 15, 1990), rev'd Waggoner v. STAAR Surgical Co.,
Del. Supr., 588 A.2d 1130 (1991) (actions taken in violation of authority
granted in DGLC or certificate of incorporation are void, including issuance of
preferred stock without necessary adoption of resolution of board in violation
of Section 151(g)).
Moreover, even if the Court were empowered to disregard that
statutory mandate of Section 211(a) -- which it is not -- lightly brushing
aside the meaning of the Company's "registered office" in this State would do
great harm to the Delaware statutory scheme. The term "registered office"
has a very specific meaning under Delaware law and has significance.(1) For
example, as one treatise describes, the "purpose of the registered office is
to serve as an address for service of process and for tax-related
communications from the State." SEE R.F. Balotti & J. Finkelstein, THE
DELAWARE LAW OF CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS Section 3.1, at 3-2
(3d ed. 1998). In addition, the "registered office" of a Delaware
corporation also serves as, among other things, the location for (1) the
filing of voting trust agreements (Section 218), (2) the delivery of written
consents (Section 228), (3) the delivery of stocklist and books and records
demands (Section 220),
- ------------------------
(1) Section 131(a) of the DGCL requires every corporation to maintain in this
State a registered office, and Section 102(a)(2) requires every company's
certificate of incorporation to include the "address (which shall included
the street, number, city and county) of the corporation's registered office
in this State, and the name of its registered agent at such address."
6
<PAGE>
and (4) stockholders meetings (Section 211).
Finally, this Court has consistently recognized the importance of
stockholders meetings in the scheme of corporate governance. SEE E.G., HOSCHETT
V. TSI INT'L SOFTWARE, LTD., Del. Ch., 683 A.2d 43, 44 (1996). If such meetings
are to have any meaning at all, they must be noticed in accordance with the
Company's bylaws and Delaware law. Here, Mentor clearly knew the location of
Quickturn's registered office in Delaware, since on the very same day it issued
the invalid Notice an Proxy Statement, it delivered agent designations
purporting to call the special meeting to Quickturn's registered office in
Wilmington, Delaware. Its decision to notice the meeting for another location
is thus explicable. More significantly, the notice of the meeting for a
non-authorized location is contrary to Section 211(a) and therefore legally
invalid. Mentor should be enjoined from subjecting Quickturn and its
stockholders to a patently invalid meeting.
7
<PAGE>
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Quickturn respectfully requests that
its Motion for Preliminary Injunction be granted.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
/s/
----------------------------------------
Kenneth J. Nachbar (#2067)
William M. Lafferty (#2755)
Donna L. Culver (#2983)
1201 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
(302) 658-9200
Attorneys for Defendants
OF COUNSEL:
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
James A. DiBoise
David J. Berger
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
(650) 493-9300
October 16, 1998
<PAGE>
MENTOR GRAPHICS NOTIFIES QUICKTURN STOCKHOLDERS OF CHANGE IN
LOCATION OF OCTOBER 29 SPECIAL MEETING
WILSONVILLE, OR, OCTOBER 19, 1998 -- Mentor Graphics Corporation (Nasdaq:
MENT) today said that is has mailed to stockholders of Quickturn Design Systems,
Inc. (Nasdaq: QKTN) an Amended and Supplemental Notice changing the location of
the October 29, 1998 Special Meeting from Dover, Delaware to The Corporation
Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
The principal purpose of the Special Meeting is to vote on replacing the
Quickturn Board of Directors with a slate of independent directors nominated by
Mentor Graphics. If the nominees are elected, Mentor Graphics expects that,
subject to their fiduciary duties to all Quickturn stockholders, the nominees
will take the steps necessary to facilitate the stockholders' ability to accept
Mentor Graphics' $12.125 per share all-cash offer. A trial on Mentor Graphics'
challenge to Quickturn's anti-takeover actions and Mentor Graphics' scheduling
of the Special Meeting is commencing today in Delaware state court.
The text of Mentor Graphics' letter to Quickturn stockholders follows:
[MENTOR LETTERHEAD]
IMPORTANT NOTICE
October 16, 1998
Dear Quickturn Stockholder:
THE LOCATION OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS OF QUICKTURN DESIGN
SYSTEMS, INC., CALLED BY MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION FOR OCTOBER 29, 1998 AT 3
P.M. NEW YORK CITY TIME, HAS BEEN CHANGED TO THE CORPORATION TRUST COMPANY, 1209
ORANGE STREET, WILMINGTON (COUNTY OF NEW CASTLE), DELAWARE 19801. As you know,
the Special Meeting was previously scheduled to take place at the offices of The
Corporation Trust Company in Dover, Delaware as provided in the Notice of
Special Meeting sent to you on September 11, 1998. The foregoing constitutes the
Amended and Supplemental Notice of Special Meeting to holders of record of
Quickturn common stock as of the close of business on September 10, 1998, the
record date for the October 29 Special Meeting.
Mentor Graphics had set the Special Meeting in Dover, Delaware based on a
provision in Quickturn's bylaws. Quickturn filed a motion in Delaware state
court today stating that Quickturn's certificate of incorporation, which
provides for Wilmington, Delaware as the location of the Special Meeting, should
control over the bylaw provision. By waiting for over a month to even mention
this, the motion is another example of Quickturn's ongoing effort to delay the
vote at the Special Meeting and frustrate the will of stockholders who want to
accept our $12.125 per share, fully financed, all-cash offer. Mentor Graphics
will provide round-trip transportation to the Wilmington, Delaware location for
any stockholder who appears at the Dover, Delaware location.
-BULLETIN-
It is important for you to know that, on October 14, 1998, Institutional
Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS), one of the nation's leading institutional
shareholder advisory firms, has recommended to its clients that they vote in
favor of Mentor Graphics' director nominees and related proposals at the Special
Meeting. In it report, ISS states: "At best, ISS views the [Quickturn] board's
action as an overzealous execution of its perceived fiduciary duty to
shareholders. At worst, we must give weight to the self-preservation effects
that the takeover defenses produce on behalf of the board and management at the
potential expense of shareholders. Fiduciary duty does not include eliminating
or obstructing the rights of shareholders to determine to accept any offer for
their ownership in the company."
The ISS report concludes: "The board's duty would have been more properly
executed by placing its argument squarely in opposition to the offer of [Mentor]
and allowing shareholders to exercise right to vote democratically and
expeditiously on the matter."
<PAGE>
VOTE YOUR GOLD PROXY CARD TODAY!
If you have any questions or need assistance in voting Mentor Graphics' GOLD
proxy card, please call MacKenzie Partners, Inc., which can be reached at
800-322-2885 Toll-Free or at 212-929-5500 (Collect).
Sincerely,
Walden C. Rhines
President and Chief Executive Officer
The Dealer Manager for Mentor Graphics' tender offer is Salomon Smith
Barney.
<TABLE>
<S> <C> <C>
Contacts: Anne M. Wagner Roy Winnick/Todd Fogarty
Vice President, Marketing Kekst and Company
503/685-1462 212/521-4800
</TABLE>
# # #
