IBJNews

Roche aims to prevent bidding war for software firm

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Roche Diagnostics Corp. has sued to stop a bidding war for a company it thought it already had a deal to acquire.

The Swiss company, which operates its North American business out of Indianapolis, filed a lawsuit late last month against Virginia-based Medical Automation Systems Inc. for breaching the purchase agreement the companies signed back in October.

The two companies have developed software over the past 15 years to accompany blood glucose monitors Roche sells to hospitals and health care providers.

Roche struck a deal Oct. 12 to pay $38 million, technically to acquire Medical Automation’s software, and also agreed to forgive $1.9 million in debt.

But then the company got a better offer, according to Roche’s lawsuit. On Oct. 21, Alere Inc. offered $38.5 million to buy all of Medical Automation’s stock. The next day, Alere raised its offer to $40 million.

In November, Medical Automation shareholders voted to reject Roche’s purchase agreement in favor of Alere’s.

Roche fought back in two ways. It moved to launch an arbitration hearing in New York and also matched Alere’s offer, saying it was exercising a right of first refusal that had been part of a 2006 contract between Roche and Medical Automation.

That contract, which guarantees Roche’s exclusive right to Medical Automation’s software, expired on Dec. 31.

According to Roche’s lawsuit, Medical Automation said it would request competing bids this week from both Roche and Alere, and then pick the one it liked best.

Roche filed its lawsuit in federal court in Indianapolis, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Medical Automation from soliciting competing bids.

“Roche contends it effectively exercised its right of first refusal to purchase MAS,” Roche attorneys wrote in their lawsuit, referring to Medical Automation Systems by its initials. “In fact, it negotiated for its first right of refusal to avoid just the sort of bidding war MAS intends to initiate.”

Medical Automoation has yet to respond to Roche’s suit in court. A call to one of its attorneys was not immediately returned.

Roche and Medical Automation began working together in the mid-1990s, according to Roche’s lawsuit. To help develop the software, Roche loaned the company more than $10 million over that time, in addition to paying license fees.

The companies first discussed a merger in early 2008, but talks broke down that summer because Medical Automation’s owners, Gregory Menke and Kurt Wassenaar, wanted more than Roche was willing to offer.

Talks resumed in 2009 and eventually led to the deal in 2010.

Medical Automation’s software, known as RALS, is used in Roche’s Accu-Chek and CoaguChek blood monitors. The software allows blood test results from several patients at once to flow easily into a hospital’s electronic medical record system.

“The acquisition of RALS assets is a perfect fit with our strategy to deliver market-leading IT connectivity solutions. It further complements our IT product portfolio,” Peter Finckh, Roche Diagnostics’ head of global platforms and support, said in October.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT