Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/03/2010 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: October 21, 2009

The complaint alleges misconduct from the Board of Directors, under the terms of the agreement, Trimeris shareholders will receive $3.60 in cash for each share of Trimeris they own for a total transaction value of approximately of $81 million.

The complaint charges Trimeris with breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law related to the Trimeris board's approval of the proposed merger. The transaction appears to be unfair, because of the price being paid, various deal protections and the Company granted Arigene a top-up option that may allow Arigene to purchase additional shares.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, on November 10, 2009, counsel for the plaintiff and the Company executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), pursuant to which, inter alia, the Company would make additional public disclosures through the filing of an amended Solicitation/Recommendation Statement, and all claims in the action would be dismissed in accordance with the terms of the MOU. The settlement of the action is subject to negotiation of definitive settlement documentation and approval by the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and is conditioned upon consummation of the Merger.

On February 3, 2010, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TRMS
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: M.D. North Carolina
DOCKET #: 09-CV-00818
JUDGE: Hon. L. Patrick Auld
DATE FILED: 10/21/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/19/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/21/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
    30 Broad Street, 15 1h Floor, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, NY 10004
    212.363.7500 212.363-7171 ·
  2. The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm
    127 West Hargett Street, Suite 104, Post Office Box 1509, The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm, NC 27602
    919.831.8700 919.831.8700 ·
No Document Title Filing Date