Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/29/2011 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: October 18, 2010

According to a press release dated October 19, 2010, Genzyme is a biotechnology company with a broad product and service portfolio focused on rare genetic disease orders, renal disease, orthopedics, cancer, transplant and immune disease, and diagnostic and predictive testing. In July 2010, Sanofi attempted to engage Genzyme in discussions concerning a potential acquisition of Genzyme by Sanofi. Specifically, Sanofi proposed to purchase Genzyme for $69 per share, a transaction valued at approximately $18.5 billion. On August 11, 2010, Genzyme rejected Sanofi's non-coercive, good faith, premium offer, despite Sanofi's stated willingness to consider significant increases in its offering price, perhaps to as high as $80 per share, if Genzyme allowed Sanofi to conduct a due diligence review of confidential business information. However, Genzyme has refused to allow Sanofi's due diligence review unless Sanofi first raised its price, without specifying any particular price it wanted Sanofi to offer. On October 4, 2010, Sanofi commenced a Tender Offer to purchase all of the outstanding common shares of Genzyme.

On October 7, 2010, Genzyme, with the approval of its Board of Directors, issued a materially false and misleading Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9. The 14D-9, which recommends that Genzyme shareholders reject the Tender Offer and not tender their shares, omits and/or misrepresents material information and fails, among other things, to provide any credible explanation of why the Board of Directors refuses to negotiate with Sanofi and allow Sanofi to conduct a due diligence review that might support a higher offering price. Instead, the 14D-9 states that Sanofi's offering price is not high enough to warrant either negotiations or allowance of a due diligence review by Sanofi. However, given Sanofi's expressed willingness to consider raising its offering price to as high as $80 per share, Genzyme's position is untenable.

On December 06, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a Notice Of Dismissal Without Prejudice Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On December 17, 2010, the Court issued an Order to Consolidate the Actions under the docket number of 10-CV-11356 and Appoint Co-Lead Counsel in this case.

The Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Recommendation to grant the Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal and to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss as moot.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: GENZ
Company Market: New York SE
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: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 10-CV-11776
JUDGE: Hon. Joseph L. Tauro
DATE FILED: 10/18/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/07/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/18/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kenneth A. Elan (New York)
    217 Broadway, Suite 606, Kenneth A. Elan (New York), NY 10007
    212.619.0261 212.619.2707 ·
  2. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (Chicago)
    10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (Chicago), IL 60603
    312.377.1181 312.377.1181 ·
  3. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  4. Prince Lobel Glovsky & Tye LLP
    100 Cambridge Street, Suite 2200, Prince Lobel Glovsky & Tye LLP, MA 02114
    (617) 456-8003 (617) 456-8100 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 10-CV-11356
JUDGE: Hon. Joseph L. Tauro
DATE FILED: 01/18/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/07/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/18/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Geld & Gelb LLP
    84 State Street, 4th Floor, Geld & Gelb LLP, MA 02109
    (617) 345-0010 (617) 345-0009 ·
  2. Harwood Feffer LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Harwood Feffer LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 212.753.3630 · info@whhf.com
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date