The pharmaceutical giant’s “convoluted and dishonest” scheme involved using regulatory “sleight of hand” to avoid handing over post-deal payments totaling roughly 75% of what it agreed to pay for Padlock Therapeutics Inc. so it could commercialize a potential autoimmune drug, according to the complaint filed by former Padlock stockholders.
The case echoes a recurring theme in Delaware’s Chancery Court, the leading US forum for merger fights, where jilted ex-shareholders often claim corporate ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
Learn About Bloomberg Law
AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools.