Company Can't Back Out of Oral Agreement to End Proxy Fight, Slights Rules
An investor in Innoviva Inc. has finally won its fight to appoint two directors to the drug developer's board, after the Chancery Court on Dec. 8 ruled that the company was bound to honor a last-minute deal to resolve a dramatic proxy fight.
December 11, 2017 at 05:32 PM
4 minute read
An investor in Innoviva Inc. has finally won its fight to appoint two directors to the drug developer's board, after the Chancery Court on Dec. 8 ruled that the company was bound to honor a last-minute deal to resolve a dramatic proxy fight.
Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III ruled that Innoviva and shareholder Sarissa Capital Domestic Fund had reached a valid verbal agreement to expand the Innoviva board by two seats just ahead of what it thought would be certain defeat at the company's annual meeting in April.
Though Innoviva, which primarily collects royalties on drugs it licenses for GlaxoSmithKline, was eventually able to lock up the eleventh-hour support of a key investor, Slights said that the company could not escape the deal it had struck only hours earlier to install two new Sarissa-backed directors to the board.
“When [Innoviva] sensed that a loss would be announced at any moment, it did what it thought it had to do to manage the risk and keep its incumbents on the board—it deliberately struck a deal with Sarissa at the 59th minute,” Slights wrote in a 72-page memorandum opinion. “Its efforts to walk away from that deal, after discovering that the risk it thought it perceived was not real, will not be countenanced.”
Sarissa, which had challenged the compensation of Innoviva's directors in light of lagging stock performance, sued to enforce the settlement on April 20, the same day Innoviva investors voted narrowly to keep the company's seven-member board in place.
“To date, Innoviva has not explained to Sarissa, or as far as the plaintiffs know, anyone else, why it contends that the agreement is not binding,” attorneys for the fund said in a 16-page complaint. “The plaintiffs assume that failure to explain or even respond is because the Innoviva spin machine has not figured out how to spin its behavior in a way that is credible under well-established law.”
Innoviva later responded that the sides never agreed in writing to all the material terms of the agreement before the company abruptly changed course after securing deciding votes from BlackRock Inc.
Up until then, Innoviva had feared that investors would shoot down its slate of incumbents, and acquiesced on April 19 to Sarissa's demands, which included scrapping a standstill provision that would have prevented the dissident shareholder from acquiring any more stock in the company or soliciting voting proxies.
Sarissa said in court documents that discussions between negotiators from each side had produced a valid and enforceable contract. Innoviva's sudden reversal, it alleged, had constituted a clear breach of a binding settlement.
In his opinion, Slights said that evidence presented at a one-day trial in July provided “vivid color to a picture that leaves little doubt” that Sarissa and Innoviva had reached an agreement on the essential terms to end the proxy contest the day before the vote.
According to Slights' opinion, much of the negotiation had centered on the standstill, and not on the execution of a written contract or public announcement. Still, attorneys for both sides had finalized a draft letter confirming the agreement, a clear indication, he said, that Sarissa and Innoviva had already reached a deal.
It was only when BlackRock finally came around to Innoviva's side later in the afternoon that the company shut down all settlement-related talks with Sarissa. By that point, however, Innoviva had already established clear contractual obligations that it couldn't, in good conscience, walk away from, Slights said.
“Given that the Sarissa-Innoviva settlement agreement was (and is) a valid, binding contract between Sarissa and Innoviva, Innoviva was not entitled to abandon that agreement merely on account of BlackRock's vote,” he wrote. “With all of this said, on the scale that balances the equities here, Innoviva has nothing but misguided opportunism to place in its weighing pan.”
Robert S. Saunders, an attorney with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom who represented Innoviva, declined to comment Monday on the ruling, and the company did not respond to to a request for comment.
An attorney for Sarissa was not immediately able to comment.
Sarissa was represented by Martin L. Seidel and Sameer Advani from Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Stephen E. Jenkins, Richard D. Heins and Peter H. Kyle of Ashby & Geddes.
Innoviva was represented by Saunders, Sarah Runnells Martin, Alyssa S. O'Connell and Matthew P. Majarian, all from Skadden.
The case was captioned Sarissa Capital Domestic Fund v. Innoviva.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSolar Company: Restrictive Covenant Circumstances Require Chancery Blue Penciling
3 minute readChancery Signals Overbroad Anticompetitive Agreements Won't Cut It—Again
4 minute readRare Opposition to Proposed Del. Corporate Law Changes Is Voiced to House Committee
5 minute readMusk's Focus on X Has Come at Tesla's Expense, Shareholder Lawsuit Claims
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1A Judge Is Raising Questions About Docket Rotation
- 2Eleven Attorneys General Say No to 'Unconstitutional' Hijacking of State, Local Law Enforcement
- 3Optimizing Legal Services: The Shift Toward Digital Document Centers
- 4Charlie Javice Fraud Trial Delayed as Judge Denies Motion to Sever
- 5Holland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250