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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT