Synopsys Completes Acquisition of Ansys
News Highlights:
SUNNYVALE, Calif., July 17, 2025 /CNW/ -- Synopsys (Nasdaq: SNPS) today announced the completion of its acquisition of Ansys. The transaction, which was announced on January 16, 2024, combines leaders in silicon design, IP and simulation and analysis to enable customers to rapidly innovate AI-powered products. Synopsys is now positioned to win in an expanded $31 billion total addressable market (TAM). 1
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
17 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
DEADLINE ALERT: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors of RxSight
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against RxSight, Inc. ('RxSight' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ: RXST) and reminds investors of the September 22, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing 'adoption challenges' and/or structural issues resulting in declines in sales and utilization; (2) Defendants had overstated the demand for RxSight's products; (3) as a result, RxSight was unlikely to meet its own previously issued financial guidance for fiscal year 2025; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On July 8, 2025, after the market closed, RxSight reported preliminary second quarter 2025 financial results, revealing significant declines in LDD sales, LAL utilization, and overall revenue. The Company also lowered its full year 2025 guidance by approximately $42.5 million at the midpoint. The Company's Chief Executive Officer, Ronald Kurtz, disclosed that '[a]doption challenges over the last few quarters have been a primary reason for the LDD stall.' On this news, RxSight's stock price fell $4.84, or 37.8%, to close at $7.95 per share on July 9, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding RxSight's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the RxSight class action, go to or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP ( Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner.
CBC
18 minutes ago
- CBC
Is Canada-U.S. free trade dead?
Andrew Chang explores the signs that North American free trade — as we've come to know it — is on its way out. Plus, a breakdown of U.S. President Donald Trump's new plan to end the war in Ukraine.
Globe and Mail
21 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
After viral Coldplay kiss-cam video, advice for workers on when private relationships become your employer's concern
Is there still a line between your private affairs and accountability to your employer? In the age of viral videos and online sleuthing, what happens away from work can derail an executive's career as quickly as what happens in the boardroom. Just ask Andy Byron, the now former chief executive of tech company Astronomer, who abruptly resigned last week after being shown embracing the company's chief people officer, Kristin Cabot, on the Jumbotron at a Coldplay concert near Boston. The pair's frantic reaction after appearing on the big screen during a kiss-cam moment prompted Colplay's frontman, Chris Martin, to joke that they were probably having an affair. As it turns out, that appears to be true. Mr. Byron resigned shortly afterward, likely to avoid termination, and Ms. Cabot was placed on leave. The viral Coldplay kiss-cam video shows digital sleuthing can go too far The fallout raises legal questions: when do Canadian employers have a right, or even the obligation, to intervene in consensual relationships between employees, especially senior ones? When two senior executives are involved in an apparent affair, the reputational risk to their employer can be significant. It calls into question their judgment, integrity and values – and, by extension, their ability to lead. Key figures such as a CEO or chief people officer are often closely tied to a company's brand and public image. This places them in a fiduciary role, meaning they are legally obligated to prioritize the company's best interests. If a fiduciary's private conduct becomes a matter of public scrutiny, it can damage the company's reputation, sometimes irreparably. As a result, employers often react swiftly when executives face public allegations of misconduct or online shaming, even if unrelated to their positions. Despite that those allegations may later be disproven, damage or potential damage to a company's reputation alone may sometimes be great enough to justify immediate dismissal, potentially without severance. Even consensual office romances can lead to disputes, sexual harassment complaints or retaliation claims. Where one employee holds power over the other, such as in a reporting relationship or with influence over promotions or compensation, the employer's right to intervene becomes more evident. These relationships carry a high risk of perceived favouritism during the relationship or retaliation if it ends. Many companies treat such relationships between managers and subordinates as serious business risks and have established policies requiring disclosure so appropriate steps can be taken to protect the company and those involved from misconduct claims. Some companies even go further and prohibit such relationships altogether. If a company adopts such a policy, then any violation can be treated as a disciplinary matter and, depending on the circumstances and severity of the violation, can also lead to cause for dismissal without severance. In the absence of a formal workplace dating policy, many companies have detailed codes of conduct that attempt to regulate workplace behaviour. Those codes of conduct are usually broad enough to capture situations of an actual or perceived conflict of interest, which can often arise when a senior employee becomes romantically involved with a more junior one. In a high-profile case last year, the Royal Bank of Canada dismissed its chief financial officer for just cause after being tipped off to an alleged affair with a subordinate. The bank claimed she breached its code of conduct by engaging in an undisclosed personal relationship that allegedly resulted in preferential treatment, including raises and promotions. Both parties denied the affair and any favouritism, but the case will likely turn on whether the code of conduct was breached and whether the breach was serious enough to justify the bank's reaction. How employees respond to internal investigations also matters. When a complaint involves harassment, discrimination or retaliation, employers are legally required to investigate. That usually starts with interviews and fact-finding missions. If an employee is dishonest during this process, refuses to answer questions or retaliates against someone who made a complaint, that alone is often grounds for dismissal for cause without severance even if the initial infraction would not have led to that result. The key takeaways for employees are that engaging in a consensual relationship with a colleague can become their employer's business, particularly if they are in a senior role or are having a romantic relationship with a more junior employee. Concealing that relationship, especially where it may give rise to a real or perceived conflict of interest or violates company policy, may be grounds for termination without severance. Employees in positions of authority and influence are held to an even higher standard. They must assume their personal and private interactions, even in a dark corner at a Coldplay concert, are not beyond their employer's scrutiny. Daniel A. Lublin is a partner at Whitten & Lublin, representing clients in workplace legal disputes. He can be reached at Dan@
