IBJNews

Roche back in court as partner looks to sell to competitor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Things got even testier Tuesday in the court fight between Roche Diagnostics Corp. and the Virginia company it is trying to acquire.

Attorneys for Roche requested a temporary restraining order against Medical Automation Systems Inc. Tuesday afternoon after receiving word that the company is speeding up plans to sell itself to a Roche competitor, Massachusetts-based Alere Inc.

The word came in a letter from Medical Automation attorney John Cambria hinting at “changed circumstances” to U.S. District Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch.

Medical Automation’s board “determined that its timing for consideration of offers for the company should be accelerated,” Cambria wrote, one week after Roche attorneys say Cambria told the judge that no sale was imminent. Cambria added that there have been “additional developments since the board made its determination,” but he did not say what they were.

Roche attorneys say they didn’t see the letter until 12:45 p.m. Tuesday, after which they rushed to court to ask for a restraining order to temporarily halt any impending sale.

Roche and Medical Automation agreed to a sale in October, but Medical Automation, or MAS, rejected the deal after Alere made a higher offer. Roche contends MAS breached its commitments to Roche, and has asked the federal courts to intervene to stop any sale and force MAS into arbitraiton proceedings.

“It is not hard to discern what is happening here,” wrote Michael Rosiello and Joseph Wendt, attorneys at the Indianapolis law firm Barnes & Thornburg LLP. “Precisely as Roche predicted—a prediction that Mr. Cambria scoffed at on January 4—MAS is seeking to sell itself to Alere immediately, before the completion of the dispute resolution process ….”

Messages seeking comment from Rosiello, Wendt and Cambria were not immediately returned Wednesday morning.

Roche Diagnostics, which operates its North American business out of Indianapolis, has worked with Medical Automation for 15 years to develop software to accompany blood-glucose monitors Roche sells to 2,000 U.S. hospitals and health care providers.

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

However, within 10 days, Medical Automation received letters from Alere offering $40 million. In November, Medical Automation shareholders—who are mainly the same executives who struck the deal with Roche—voted to reject Roche’s purchase agreement.

Roche fought back in two ways. It moved to launch an arbitration hearing 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.

However, in letters sent to Roche, Medical Automation officials argue that Alere’s letters merely expressed interest, and did not constitute a pending offer. Therefore, Alere’s interest did not trigger the right-of-first-refusal clause in the 2006 agreement.

And now that agreement has expired. So Medical Automation told Roche it was free to make a new bid to acquire the company, but that Roche’s October purchase agreement and 2006 right of first refusal are no longer in force.

“We are pleased with your continued interest in acquiring MAS,” wrote Medical Automation CEO Kurt Wassenaur in a Dec. 23 letter to Roche Diagnostics CEO Jack Phillips. “Therefore,” he added, “on or about January 3, 2011, we intend to distribute a draft stock purchase agreement to both Roche and Alere … and we will select the party that appears to offer the most favorable transaction.”

Instead of entering the bidding war, Roche responded five days later by filing two federal lawsuits in New York and Indianapolis, the second of which seeks a preliminary injunction to stop Medical Automation from soliciting competing bids.

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.

But Roche now worries it would suffer "irreparable harm" if MAS sells to Alere, including Alere's access to Roche's customer information.

"If it is announced that Alere—a competitor of Roche—has entered into a contract to purchase MAS, that could have a disruptive and highly damaging effect on Roche's relations with its customers," Roche's attorneys wrote Tuesday.

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