Investor Sues Over Bristol-Myers' $74B Deal to Buy Cancer Drug Maker
According to the complaint, Celgene and its directors held the deal out as a premium to its stockholders, despite allegedly rejecting a previous offer from Bristol-Myers with an aggregate value of $110 per share.
March 12, 2019 at 02:41 PM
4 minute read
An investor in Celgene Corp. on Monday sued over Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s planned $74 billion acquisition of Celgene in Delaware Chancery Court, saying that the deal undervalued the company and its cancer therapies that are in the development pipeline.
The stockholder class-action lawsuit, filed by Hollywood, Florida-based law firm Mager Paruas, claimed that Bristol-Myers was “taking advantage” of a temporary decline in Celgene's stock price to offer investors an estimated $102 in total value for each share they own in Celgene, which is based in New Jersey. Bristol-Myers' headquarters are in New York City.
According to the complaint, Celgene and its directors held the deal out as a premium to its stockholders, despite allegedly rejecting a previous offer from Bristol-Myers with an aggregate value of $110 per share.
“Celgene common stock is trading at depressed levels as the company is at the bottom of a business cycle that is expected to improve,” the complaint said. “A fair price cannot be based on a purported 'premium' over a depressed market price and the $102 price is unfair to stockholders.”
Celgene and Bristol-Myers announced the deal Jan. 3, saying the tie-up would create a “leading focused specialty biopharma company” for treating cancer, inflammatory, immunologic and cardiovascular diseases.
“Combining with Bristol-Myers Squibb, we are delivering immediate and substantial value to Celgene shareholders and providing them meaningful participation in the long-term growth opportunities created by the combined company,” Celgene chief executive Mark Alles said in a joint press release.
Under the agreement, Celgene investors would come to own 31 percent of the combined company, receiving one Bristol-Myers share and $50 in cash for each Celgene share they owned. The deal also provided one “contingent value right” to each Celgene investor that would entitle the holder to potentially receive a one-time payment of $9.00 per share if a slate of Celgene drugs receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ahead of certain deadlines.
But Mager Paruas said the agreement valued the three drugs at $6.3 billion—far below the $40 to $50 billion the firm claimed they would be worth over five years. Because the payment was deadline-based, the new management of the post-merger company would have “every incentive” to delay the approval process, the complaint said.
Spokespersons for Celgene and Bristol-Myers did not immediately respond Tuesday to calls seeking comment on the lawsuit.
The complaint also targeted Celgene's officers and directors for allegedly breaching their financial duties in pursuing the deal. According to the filing, Alles and Celgene's other executives would receive large severance payments if they quit or were fired from the company within two years of the merger closing.
Alles in particular, the filing alleged, had “used his influence” to get the board to approve the merger, which would entitle him to a cash payment of three times his annual salary base if he resigns with good reason or is terminated without cause. Absent a deal, Alles would only be entitled to twice his annual salary under those circumstances, it said.
“These executives who stand to personally profit from the proposed transaction are the same individuals who are responsible for the creation of the company's projections and models upon which the board relied in determining that the proposed transaction was fair to stockholders,” Mager Paruas' attorneys wrote.
The lawsuit, now the second to challenge the deal in Delaware Chancery Court, seeks an injunction to halt a stockholder vote on the merger, which is currently slated for April 12.
Mager Paruas is represented by Michael E. Criden and Lindsey Grossman of Criden & Love in South Miami and Lee Squitieri of Squitieri & Fearon in New York. Carmella P. Keener of Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess is acting as local counsel in the case.
An online docket-tracking service did not list counsel for Celgene, its executives or Bristol-Myers.
The case, captioned Mager Paruas v. Alles, has not yet been assigned to a judge.
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
© 2024 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 AllWilson Sonsini Knocks Out Claims Against Inhibrx Biosciences in Trade Secrets Verdict
Chancery Again Rules in Plaintiff's Favor in Earnout Provision Dispute
3 minute readNovo Nordisk Files Patent Claims to Fend off Generic Rivals of Wegovy
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Latest Class of Court Officers Sworn into Service in New York
- 2Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
- 3Many Southeast Law Firms Planned New, Smaller Offices in 2024
- 4On the Move and After Hours: Goldberg Segalla, Faegre Drinker, Pashman Stein
- 5Recent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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