Corante

About this Author
Derek Lowe
Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
MedChem Buzz
Kilomentor
On Pharma
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
One in Ten Thousand
Electron Pusher
Periodic Tabloid
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blog
Propter Doc
Chemiotics II
The Chemical Notebook
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
Chirality
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Drug Discovery Opinion
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
WSJ Health Blog
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Useful Chemistry
Chiral Jones
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Totally Synthetic
Fragment Literature
The F- Blog
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Carbon-Based Curiosities
Experimental Error
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Sigma-Aldrich ChemBlogs
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
P212121
ChemCafe
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
A Scientist's Life
Speculist
Cosmic Variance
The Capsule
Zeroth Order Approximation
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
Med Tech Sentinel
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
The Health Care Blog
Respectful Insolence
Black Triangle
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
Arnold Kling
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem
The Stalwart


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Tinkerty Tonk
Instapundit
Megan McArdle
Mickey Kaus
Colby Cosh
Alien Corn
No Watermelons


Belles Lettres
Two Blowhards
Critical Mass
Arts and Letters Daily
God of the Machine
Armavirumque
About Last Night
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« The Merck Deal and the SEC: Not a Joke | Main | Don't Like It? Well, Just Don't Cite It! »

March 10, 2009

Merck/Schering-Plough: Waiting for J&J To Raise Their Hand

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

One issue in the Merck/Schering Plough deal that's come up since it was announced is Johnson & Johnson's role in it. They have a deal on Remicade ( ) and its follow-up golimumab, which provides significant revenue to S-P (who have the non-US rights). J&J is no doubt weighing their options today, because Merck and Schering-Plough structured their deal, by all appearances, specifically to avoid triggering some provisions that would make these rights revert to J&J.

Over at the S-P watchdog site Shearlings Got Plowed, we find this, referring to this partnership agreement which you can find at the SEC. Scrolling down to section 8.2, one finds (emphasis added):

(c) Change in Control. If either party is acquired by a third party or otherwise comes under Control (as defined in Section 1.4 above) of a third party, it will promptly notify the other party not subject to such change of control. The party not subject to such change of control will have the right, however not later than thirty (30) days from such notification, to notify in writing the party subject to the change of Control of the termination of the Agreement taking effect immediately. As used herein "Change of Control" shall mean (i) any merger, reorganization, consolidation or combination in which a party to this Agreement is not the surviving corporation; or (ii) any "person" (within the meaning of Section 13(d) and Section 14(d)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), excluding a party's Affiliates, is or becomes the beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of securities of the party representing more than fifty percent (50%) of either (A) the then-outstanding shares of common stock of the party or (B) the combined voting power of the party's then-outstanding voting securities; or (iii) if individuals who as of the Effective Date constitute the Board of Directors of the party (the "Incumbent Board") cease for any reason to constitute at least a majority of the Board of Directors of the party; provided, however, that any individual becoming a director subsequent to the Effective Date whose election, or nomination for election by the party's shareholders, was approved by a vote of at least a majority of the directors then comprising the Incumbent Board shall be considered as though such individual were a member of the Incumbent Board, but excluding, for this purpose, any such individual whose initial assumption of office occurs as a result of an actual or threatened election contest with respect to the election or removal of directors or other actual or threatened solicitation of proxies or consents by or on behalf of a person other than the Board; or (iv) approval by the shareholders of a party of a complete liquidation or the complete dissolution of such party.

That's why the deal is, on paper, Schering-Plough acquiring Merck (of all things). S-P will be the "surviving corporation", you see, so J&J can just go away and keep splitting all that anti-TNF antibody revenue. Somehow I don't think that this is going to go that smoothly. Like "Condor" over at the Shearlings site, I don't see how that language about the board of directors can apply to the new board of the merged company, since Merck was clearly not a party to this agreement. It has to apply, I'd think, to the current Schering-Plough board, which will cease to exist in its present form. No, we're surely going to see some response from J&J, and very soon. They won't walk away from this one.

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets


COMMENTS

1. drug_hunter on March 10, 2009 7:47 AM writes...

J&J has some time. 30 days from change of control, which of course hasn't happened yet.

Permalink to Comment

2. FormerMolecModeler on March 10, 2009 8:41 AM writes...

Ooh, contract law. Looks like there may be some issues of good faith. Maybe J&J will allege fraud or misrepresentation as well!

Litigators, start your engines! I can only imagine the amount of money billed for discovery on this baby (assuming legal action ensues).

Permalink to Comment

3. drug_hunter on March 10, 2009 11:16 AM writes...

Does this pass the sniff test?

"The deal is structured as a reverse merger in which the surviving parent company is the existing Schering-Plough corporate entity, which will be renamed Merck," said Merck general counsel Bruce Kuhlik in a conference call on Monday morning. "And under the expressed terms of the distribution agreement, this change of control provision focuses on whether there has been a change in the surviving public company. It doesn't refer to stock ownership or anything of the sort. As you know, that does appear in other change-of- control provisions. It's not in this one, and that is why we are confident in our belief that we will not trigger a loss of rights."

Permalink to Comment

4. Hap on March 10, 2009 12:15 PM writes...

1) I know that these are lawyers but doesn't the phrase "securities" (as specified late in the sentence) include stock? Has he even bothered to read the agreement, particularly since the subsequent phrase (as quoted above) appears to refer precisely to fraction of stock ownership?

2) The above (#3) sounds like murdering someone and then changing your name to theirs and claiming a murder was never committed (well, the named person is still alive, isn't he? the other person just disappeared - I didn't kill him...). Do you have a designated disposable lawyer for making claims like that in front of a judge, or do you just wear a spit screen and hope that your client contract covers any penalties associated with making his arguments?

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Academia and Industry, Suing Each Other
Let's Start Off the Meeting With An Ad, OK?
The Academic-Industrial Collaboration in Drug Discovery Panel: Today
Glass Structure, Atom by Atom
How the Andrulis Paper Got Published
AstraZeneca in Waltham
Fluorine NMR: Why Not?
AstraZeneca Layoffs and Closings