Lawsuit Overview
March 2, 2012 (Update) -- A second lawsuit was filed by another investor in NASDAQ:ILMN shares against members of the board of directors of Illumina, Inc. San Diego,
Jan. 31, 2012 (Shareholders Foundation) -- An investor in shares of Illumina, Inc. (NASDAQ:ILMN) filed a lawsuit in State Court against directors of Illumina, Inc. alleged they breached their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value after Roche proposed to takeover Illumina for $44.50 per share.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to NASDAQ:ILMN stockholders in connection with the takeover offer.
On January 24, 2012, Roche announced that it is proposing to acquire all outstanding shares of Illumina, Inc. (NASDAQ:ILMN) for $44.50 per share in cash, or an aggregate of approximately $5.7 billion on a fully diluted basis. The next day Illumina, Inc. confirmed that that Roche has made an unsolicited acquisition proposal. Following the takeover proposal shares of Illumina, Inc. (NASDAQ:ILMN) jumped from $37.68 per share on January 24 2012 above the current offer and closed on Wednesday as high as $55.15. In fact, ILMN shares traded as recently as September 14, 2011 with $51.59 per share significantly above the offer and ILMN shares traded as high as $74.74 on July 22, 2011 and as high as $77.88 per share on July 6, 2011. In addition, at least one analyst has set the high target price for NYSE:ILMN shares as high as $80 per share.
Further, Illumina’s financial performance also increased over the past recent years. Its Total Revenue increased from $366.80million for a 52weeks period ending on Dec. 30, 2007 to $903.74million for a 52weeks period ending on Jan 2, 2011 and its Net Loss of $287.31million turned over the same time periods into a Net Income of $124.89million.
Then on January 26, 2012, Illumina, Inc. (NASDAQ:ILMN) announced that its Board of Directors adopted a Rights Agreement. Such a Shareholder Rights Agreement is also known as a poison pill that allows to deflect offers for a company.
However, the plaintiff claims that defendants failed to act in the best interest of shareholders and failed to maximize the value shareholders would receive in a takeover.