Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : SIBIA Neurosciences (SIBI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (529)	8/26/1999 11:49:00 PM
From: aknahow	Respond to of 579

Round 4. THE LAW SUIT. No one, on S.I., seems to care about this fight, except the non participants in the stock. See filings for details. Took so long to get here I replaced the original cut and paste with a private message about Hooterville. On Aug. 2 Sibia did have an offer made to CIBC which was indicated would be higher than the Merck ofer of $8.5. So on Aug. 4 the board called MRK and accepted their offer. Board alleges that the offer did not specify the price etc. Gee, this was an offer not from the little biotech firm but from one of the 21 companies originally contacted. Wonder if the jury made up of the lower classes will understand just what is meant by higher? As in higher price. So far IMO I think BVF has won all four rounds. Sure MRK can hire the best lawyers, but perhaps a jury won't care. Would be sort of logical to wonder why management and the board were not at all interested in exploring the other offer. Yes the MRK offer was going to expire but normally one thinks ones company is worth more than what's being offered. Think it will be hard for a jury to understand why the board acted as it did.

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (529)	8/30/1999 10:59:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 579

filed Friday...... --------------------------------- ------------------------------ CUSIP NO. 896263 10 0 13D Page 5 of 7 Pages ---------------------------------- ------------------------------ This Amendment No. 3 (the "Amendment") to the Statement on Schedule 13D, dated September 8, 1998 (as amended, the "Statement") as amended by Amendment No. 1, dated August 4, 1999 and Amendment No. 2, dated August 8, 1999 ("Amendment No. 2"), is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("BVF"), BVF Partners L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Partners"), and BVF Inc., a Delaware corporation ("BVF Inc." and, together with BVF and Partners, the "Reporting Persons") with respect to the Common Stock (the "Stock"), of Sibia Neurosciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("SIBIA"). Item 3 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: ITEM 3. SOURCE AND AMOUNT OF FUNDS OR OTHER CONSIDERATION. Since the Reporting Persons' filing of Amendment No. 2, Partners, in its capacity as general partner of BVF, has purchased on behalf of such limited partnership an aggregate number of 2,500 shares of the Stock for an aggregate consideration of $21,406.25, utilizing funds provided by BVF from its working capital pursuant to the terms of its limited partnership agreement with Partners. Item 4 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: ITEM 4. PURPOSE OF TRANSACTIONS. The Reporting Persons do not intend to tender their shares to Merck & Co. as the proposed terms do not allow stockholders to participate in SIBIA's future success. SIBIA has disclosed that it expects to be profitable in 1999 and 2000 and to earn $22.7 million in 2001. Accordingly, reporting persons believe that the tender offer by Merck & Co. grossly undervalues SIBIA.