Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/14/2018 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: May 24, 2018

ARMO BioSciences, Inc. ("ARMO" or the "Company") is a bio-technology company that develops immunotherapies for treating cancer, as well as cardiovascular, fibrosis, and inflammation diseases in the United States.

According to the Complaint, on May 10, 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly"), by which Lilly will acquire all of the outstanding shares of ARMO common stock through an all-cash tender offer at a purchase price of $50 per share (the “Tender Offer”). The Tender Offer commenced on May 23, 2018, and the Company concurrently filed a Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (the “14D-9”) with the SEC, recommending that the Company’s stockholders tender their shares for the Tender Offer price. The Tender Offer is set to expire on June 21, 2018.

Plaintiff alleges that the 14D-9 is materially false and/or misleading because it fails to disclose certain material internal financial information about the Company, relied on by the Individual Defendants to recommend the Tender Offer and by the Company’s financial advisor, Centerview Partners LLC (“Centerview”) to render an opinion that the Tender Offer is fair to ARMO stockholders, and certain material information regarding the sale process leading up to the Tender Offer, which omissions render the 14D-9 incomplete and/or misleading.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on June 14, 2018.


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


Ticker Symbol: ARMO
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 18-CV-03109
JUDGE: Hon. Richard Seeborg
DATE FILED: 05/24/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/24/2018
  1. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (Los Angeles)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available