We're all guessing here, Jim.
I merely ventured a hypothesis; never was offered up as the gospel on why BBC terminated the merger.
The discount was greater than 10% at times, but I admit I haven't bothered crunching the exact numbers.
As a trial lawyer, it's a no-brainer why BBC filed a lawsuit simultaenously with terminating the agreement. It was what Nixon used to call a "protective reaction" strike. BBC knew it would be sued for breach, so it launched the first strike, enabling it to choose the forum jurisdiction for the lawsuit. Then BBC places its complaint under seal. Wow, sounds like BBC has a real strong case. Of course Ivax had contingency plans in the event the merger did not go through. The merger was subject to shareholder approval at both companies, and Ivax had already been through one failed merger attempt. If BBC's termination of the merger rests on those purported contingency plans then BBC is going to lose the litigation. Dollars to donuts the litigation will be settled with BBC paying Ivax, at minimum, all of Ivax's administrative and legal costs associated with the merger and termination.
Anyhow, I'm back in, and I think my downside is very limited, with an upside of at least 50% in the next six months. Tell me if you think I'm wrong and why. |
