Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/02/2017 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: May 07, 2017

According to the Complaint, on April 4,2017, Innocoll and Gurnet Point issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into a Transaction Agreement (the "Merger Agreement") to sell Innocoll to Gurnet Point. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Gurnet Point will acquire all outstanding shares of Innocoll for (a) $1.75 in cash (the "Cash Consideration"), and (b) a contingent value right ("CVR"), that represents the contractual right to receive payments up to a maximum aggregate amount of $4.90 in cash upon, and subject to, the occurrence of certain CVR payment events, for a total potential value of up to $6.65 per Innocoll share. The Proposed Transaction has been valued up to approximately $209 million.

The Complaint alleges on April 21, 2017, Innocoll filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy, which recommends that Innocoll stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Innocoll management's projections, (ii) Innocoll insiders' potential conflicts of interest; (iii) the valuation analyses prepared by Piper Jaffray & Co. ("Piper") in connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion; (iv) Piper's potential conflicts of interest; and (v) the sale process leading up to the Proposed Transaction.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Major Drugs
Headquarters: Ireland

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: INNL
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: E.D. Pennsylvania
DOCKET #: 17-CV-02066
JUDGE: Hon. NITZA I QUINONES ALEJANDRO
DATE FILED: 05/07/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/07/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/07/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC
    Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Brodsky & Smith, LLC, PA 19004
    610.667.6200 610.667.6200 ·
  2. WeissLaw LLP
    551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, WeissLaw LLP, NY 10176
    212.682.3025 212.682-3010 · info@wllawny.com
No Document Title Filing Date