Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Idenix Pharmaceuticals Is Now. . . A Merck Subsidiary; Gone From NASDAQ

It would seem that the Delaware Chancery Court has blessed the settlement we mentioned, here.

And so, with Hart Scott cleared, the tender offer closed this morning. Merck owns Idenix, and its stable of drug candidates. Thus, our attention will now turn to the patent position(s), vis-a-vis Gilead -- which arguably reads on Sovaldi®'s methods -- and composition of matter. In the mean time, here is the tender offer closing announcement:

. . . .As of the tender offer expiration yesterday, 131,693,787 shares of common stock of Idenix were validly tendered and not withdrawn from the tender offer, representing approximately 82.5 percent of the outstanding common stock of Idenix on a fully diluted basis. All of such shares have been accepted for payment in accordance with the terms of the tender offer, and Merck expects to promptly pay for all such shares.

Upon completion of the merger, all outstanding shares of common stock of Idenix, other than shares held by Idenix in treasury or shares held by Idenix’s stockholders who are entitled to and properly exercise appraisal rights under Delaware law, will be canceled and converted into the right to receive cash equal to the $24.50 offer price per share without interest, less any applicable withholding taxes.

In addition, upon completion of the merger, Idenix will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merck. . . .

So the 17 per cent or so that did not tender, will get cash appraisal rights, which may well come in under the $24.50 offered. Idenix has now ceased trading on the NASDAQ -- as of this morning. Accordingly we will keep an eye on the pending patent litigation, in California's Northern District -- that will be. . . fascinating.


Anonymous said...

On a different topic:


good or bad?

Condor said...

Hey Anon. -- [standard lawyers' answer: "Um, it. . . depends. . ."]

But. . . A Great New Topic!

This is a topic worthy of an entire. . . blog!

Seriously, it is very hard to say -- and even this latest study admits to significant limits -- in answering the question of whether speedier (fee based) approvals lead to more deaths from adverse events of all sorts.

Balanced against that possibility is the equally likely possibility that -- as to drugs more quickly approved that have NOT shown any "black box-able" concerns over time -- many, many patients would have died, or been sicker, WITHOUT those new medicines.

It is all a risk/benefit equation, and we cannot demonize, by a cherry picking of the allegedly unsafe but speedy approvals -- unless we adjust for the speedy SAFE approvals' contrasting benefits, right?

Just a thumbnail sketch of what would be a 1,000 page tome. . . smile!

Namaste -- do stop back!