Skip to main content

Valeant Pharmaceuticals: Co-Purchasing and Injunctive Relief



Yesterday I discussed the history of Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and mentioned its unsuccessful effort to acquire Allergan.

Valeant never did acquire Allergan, but its effort made some fascinating law.

Some of the key questions arose from the fact that Valeant was acting in concert with a hedge fund manager, Pershing Square. So closely in concert, indeed, as to raise the question whether what was going on amounted to insider trading as SEC rules understand it? Pershing Square acquired a 9.7% stake in Allergan during the period of this collaboration, and it is was willing to vote those shares in favor of ousting the company directors that were resisting the takeover attempt.

Allergan responded with a lawsuit, asking that Pershing Square be enjoined from voting its shares giving the "likelihood" that this would be deemed to be insider trading.

Was there such a “likelihood” and would that have supported a preliminary injunction?

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California court applied what is known as the Winter test for preliminary injunctions; named after a 2008 Supreme Court decision, Winter v. NRDC. The test involves four elements: a court will grant such an injunction if there is (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) a balance of equities in favor of the movant; and (4) the interest of the public.

After working through each of those elements, the court granted the injunction “in part,” and in a way that allows each party to claim victory.

The take-away from all of that for merger arbs was (as I wrote for AllAboutAlpha at the time) that a co-purchasing tactic "in the lead-up to a tender offer may well be suspect in the eyes of many federal judges, and ought to be initiated if at all, only with that caution in the front of one's mind."

The photo above, by the way, is of William Ackman, the chief executive of Pershing Square Capital Management.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…