mark,
Why would BBC pull out merely because IVX was selling at a 10% discount to the implied value of the deal? This makes no sense whatsoever. If it was such a bargain to begin with, why would they care? The deal was a take under to begin with.
I dont claim superior knowledge but I do know petty rationale. If your cheap scenario is proper than why would they be suing IVX?
Maybe I came across hard but your reasoning had little logic behind it.
Here's a post from an after merger fallout comments. It looks like the best case scenario for IVX shareholders will be a breakup of their hodgepodge.
Said Hemant Shah, pharmaceutical analyst at HKS & Co: "If you read between the lines of IVAX's press release (on the Bergen deal), it says it and its advisors implemented certain strategies in
anticipation of the deal potentially not going through. That could be a reason for Bergen perceiving there was a breach in the agreement.
"IVAX now has to restructure. They will have to divest assets. The company is a collection of many assets, like a chemical business, a diagnostics business, while the European assets are very valuable,"
Shah added.
One trader said the deal was broken and IVAX was on its own.
"I think they are going to split up the company, but whether or not it is a buy at 11 (dollars per share) is tough to say, though the company is a lot healthier than it was when it entered the agreement with Bergen."
Bergen called off the IVAX merger last night and said it will sue the Miami-based generic drug company for breaching the agreement.
A Bergen spokeswoman declined to comment further on the deal's demise or the lawsuit, which will be sealed when filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. |
