Case 1:22-cv-00114-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`MATTHEW WHITFIELD,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`HOWARD E. JANZEN, JOHN N.
`MCMULLEN, SHARON L. O’KEEFE, MIKE
`BURKLAND, RONALD A. PAULUS,
`BHARAT SUNDARAM, JULIE ISKOW,
`BRENT D. LANG, ALEXA KING, VOICE
`MERGER SUB CORP., and STRYKER
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. ______________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
`
`Plaintiff, by his undersigned attorneys, for this complaint against defendants, alleges upon
`
`personal knowledge with respect to himself, and upon information and belief based upon, inter
`
`alia, the investigation of counsel as to all other allegations herein, as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 6, 2022 (the
`
`“Proposed Transaction”), pursuant to which Vocera Communications, Inc. (“Vocera” or the
`
`“Company”) will be acquired by Stryker Corporation (“Parent”) and Voice Merger Sub Corp.
`
`(“Purchaser”).
`
`2.
`
`On January 6, 2022, Vocera’s Board of Directors (the “Board” or “Individual
`
`Defendants”) caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the “Merger
`
`Agreement”) with Parent and Purchaser. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
`
`Purchaser commenced a tender offer (the “Tender Offer”) to purchase all of Vocera’s outstanding
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00114-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`common stock for $79.25 in cash per share. The Tender Offer is set to expire on February 23,
`
`2022.
`
`3.
`
`On January 25, 2022, defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement
`
`(the “Solicitation Statement”) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
`
`(“SEC”) in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
`
`4.
`
`The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
`
`Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff
`
`alleges herein that defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
`
`Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”) in connection with the Solicitation Statement.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over all claims asserted herein pursuant to Section 27 of
`
`the 1934 Act because the claims asserted herein arise under Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the
`
`1934 Act and Rule 14a-9.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over defendants because each defendant is either a
`
`corporation that conducts business in and maintains operations within this District, or is an
`
`individual with sufficient minimum contacts with this District so as to make the exercise of
`
`jurisdiction by this Court permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a portion of the transactions and
`
`wrongs complained of herein occurred in this District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant hereto, the
`
`owner of Vocera common stock.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Vocera is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive
`
`offices at 525 Race Street, San Jose, CA 95126. Vocera’s common stock trades on the New York
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00114-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 3
`
`Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “VCRA.”
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Defendant Brent D. Lang is Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
`
`the Company.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant Howard E. Janzen is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant John N. McMullen is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant Sharon L. O’Keefe is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant Mike Burkland is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant Ronald A. Paulus is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant Bharat Sundaram is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant Julie Iskow is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant Alexa King is a director of the Company.
`
`The defendants identified in paragraphs 10 through 18 are collectively referred to
`
`herein as the “Individual Defendants.”
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant Parent is a Michigan corporation and a party to the Merger Agreement.
`
`Defendant Purchaser is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
`
`Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`
`Background of the Company and the Proposed Transaction
`
`22.
`
`Vocera provides clinical communication and workflow solutions that help protect
`
`and connect team members, increase operational efficiency, enhance quality of care and safety,
`
`and humanize the healthcare experience.
`
`23. More than 2,300 facilities worldwide, including nearly 1,900 hospitals and
`
`healthcare facilities, have selected Vocera solutions to enable their workforce to communicate and
`
`collaborate with co-workers and engage with patients and families.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00114-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`24.
`
`On January 6, 2022, Vocera’s Board caused the Company to enter into the Merger
`
`Agreement.
`
`25.
`
`Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Purchaser commenced the Tender
`
`Offer to acquire all of Vocera’s outstanding common stock for $79.25 in cash per share.
`
`26.
`
`According to the press release announcing the Proposed Transaction:
`
`Stryker (NYSE: SYK) announced today a definitive merger agreement to acquire
`all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of Vocera
`Communications, Inc. (NYSE: VCRA) for $79.25 per share, or a total equity value
`of approximately $2.97 billion and a total enterprise value of approximately $3.09
`billion (including convertible notes). Vocera, which was founded in 2000, has
`emerged as a leading platform in the digital care coordination and communication
`category. The importance of this growing segment has continued to expand
`throughout the pandemic as it aims to reduce cognitive overload for caregivers and
`enables them to deliver the best patient care possible. . . .
`
`Under the terms of the merger agreement, Stryker will commence a tender offer for
`all outstanding shares of common stock of Vocera for $79.25 per share in cash. The
`boards of directors of both Stryker and Vocera have unanimously approved the
`transaction. The closing of the transaction is subject to expiration or termination of
`the applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements
`Act, completion of the tender offer and other customary closing conditions.
`
`The acquisition is expected to close in the first quarter of 2022 and is expected to
`have a neutral impact to net earnings per diluted share in 2022.
`
`
`The Solicitation Statement Omits Material Information, Rendering It False and Misleading
`
`27.
`
`Defendants filed the Solicitation Statement with the SEC in connection with the
`
`Proposed Transaction.
`
`28.
`
`As set forth below, the Solicitation Statement omits material information with
`
`respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading.
`
`29.
`
`First, the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the
`
`Company’s financial projections.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00114-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`30.
`
`The Solicitation Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate the
`
`projections; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.
`
`31.
`
`The disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides
`
`stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows
`
`stockholders to better understand the financial analyses performed by the company’s financial
`
`advisor in support of its fairness opinion.
`
`32.
`
`Second, the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the
`
`analyses performed by the Company’s financial advisor in connection with the Proposed
`
`Transaction, Evercore.
`
`33. With respect to Evercore’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Solicitation
`
`Statement fails to disclose: (i) the terminal values of the Company; (ii) the individual inputs and
`
`assumptions underlying the discount rates and perpetuity growth rates; (iii) Evercore’s basis for
`
`selecting the multiples used in the analysis; and (iv) the number of fully diluted shares outstanding
`
`used in the analysis.
`
`34. With respect to Evercore’s Selected Transactions Analysis, the Solicitation
`
`Statement fails to disclose: (i) the transactions observed in the analysis; (ii) the individual multiples
`
`and metrics for the transactions; (iii) the announcement and closing dates of the transactions; and
`
`(iv) the total values of the transactions.
`
`35. With respect to Evercore’s Equity Research Analyst Price Targets analysis, the
`
`Solicitation Statement fails to disclose: (i) the price targets observed in the analysis; and (ii) the
`
`sources thereof.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00114-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`36. With respect to Evercore’s Premiums Paid Analysis, the Solicitation Statement fails
`
`to disclose: (i) the transactions observed in the analysis; and (ii) the premiums paid in the
`
`transactions.
`
`37. When a banker’s endorsement of the fairness of a transaction is touted to
`
`shareholders, the valuation methods used to arrive at that opinion as well as the key inputs and
`
`range of ultimate values generated by those analyses must also be fairly disclosed.
`
`38.
`
`The omission of the above-referenced material information renders the Solicitation
`
`Statement false and misleading.
`
`39.
`
`The above-referenced omitted information, if disclosed, would significantly alter
`
`the total mix of information available to the Company’s stockholders.
`
`COUNT I
`
`
`
`(Claim for Violation of Section 14(e) of the 1934 Act Against Defendants)
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Section 14(e) of the 1934 Act states, in relevant part, that:
`
`It shall be unlawful for any person to make any untrue statement of a material fact
`or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made,
`in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading . . . in
`connection with any tender offer or request or invitation for tenders[.]
`
`42.
`
`Defendants disseminated the misleading Solicitation Statement, which contained
`
`statements that, in violation of Section 14(e) of the 1934 Act, in light of the circumstances under
`
`which they were made, omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements therein not
`
`misleading.
`
`43.
`
`The Solicitation Statement was prepared, reviewed, and/or disseminated by
`
`defendants.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00114-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`44.
`
`The Solicitation Statement misrepresented and/or omitted material facts in
`
`connection with the Proposed Transaction as set forth above.
`
`45.
`
`By virtue of their positions within the Company and/or roles in the process and the
`
`preparation of the Solicitation Statement, defendants were aware of this information and their duty
`
`to disclose this information in the Solicitation Statement.
`
`46.
`
`The omissions in the Solicitation Statement are material in that a reasonable
`
`shareholder will consider them important in deciding whether to tender their shares in connection
`
`with the Proposed Transaction. In addition, a reasonable investor will view a full and accurate
`
`disclosure as significantly altering the total mix of information made available.
`
`47.
`
`Defendants knowingly or with deliberate recklessness omitted the material
`
`information identified above in the Solicitation Statement, causing statements therein to be
`
`materially incomplete and misleading.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, defendants violated Section 14(e) of the 1934 Act.
`
`Because of the false and misleading statements in the Solicitation Statement,
`
`plaintiff is threatened with irreparable harm.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT II
`
`
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`(Claim for Violation of 14(d) of the 1934 Act Against Defendants)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Section 14(d)(4) of the 1934 Act states:
`
`Any solicitation or recommendation to the holders of such a security to accept or
`reject a tender offer or request or invitation for tenders shall be made in accordance
`with such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or
`appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
`
`53.
`
`Rule 14d-9(d) states, in relevant part:
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00114-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`Any solicitation or recommendation to holders of a class of securities referred to in
`section 14(d)(1) of the Act with respect to a tender offer for such securities shall
`include the name of the person making such solicitation or recommendation and
`the information required by Items 1 through 8 of Schedule 14D-9 (§ 240.14d-101)
`or a fair and adequate summary thereof[.]
`
`Item 8 requires that directors must “furnish such additional information, if any, as may be
`
`necessary to make the required statements, in light of the circumstances under which they are
`
`made, not materially misleading.”
`
`54.
`
`The Solicitation Statement violates Section 14(d)(4) and Rule 14d-9 because it
`
`omits the material facts set forth above, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and/or
`
`misleading.
`
`55.
`
`Defendants knowingly or with deliberate recklessness omitted the material
`
`information set forth above, causing statements therein to be materially incomplete and
`
`misleading.
`
`56.
`
`The omissions in the Solicitation Statement are material to plaintiff, and he will be
`
`deprived of his entitlement to make a fully informed decision with respect to the Proposed
`
`Transaction if such misrepresentations and omissions are not corrected prior to the expiration of
`
`the Tender Offer.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT III
`
`(Claim for Violation of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act
`Against the Individual Defendants, Parent, and Purchaser)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`The Individual Defendants, Parent, and Purchaser acted as controlling persons of
`
`
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`Vocera within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their
`
`positions as directors of Vocera and participation in and/or awareness of the Company’s operations
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00114-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`and/or intimate knowledge of the false statements contained in the Solicitation Statement filed
`
`with the SEC, they had the power to influence and control and did influence and control, directly
`
`or indirectly, the decision making of the Company, including the content and dissemination of the
`
`various statements that plaintiff contends are false and misleading.
`
`60.
`
`Each of the Individual Defendants, Parent, and Purchaser was provided with or had
`
`unlimited access to copies of the Solicitation Statement alleged by plaintiff to be misleading prior
`
`to and/or shortly after these statements were issued and had the ability to prevent the issuance of
`
`the statements or cause them to be corrected.
`
`61.
`
`Each of the Individual Defendants had direct and supervisory involvement in the
`
`day-to-day operations of the Company, and, therefore, is presumed to have had the power to
`
`control and influence the particular transactions giving rise to the violations as alleged herein, and
`
`exercised the same. The Solicitation Statement contains the unanimous recommendation of the
`
`Individual Defendants to approve the Proposed Transaction. They were thus directly connected
`
`with and involved in the making of the Solicitation Statement.
`
`62.
`
`Parent and Purchaser also had direct supervisory control over the composition of
`
`the Solicitation Statement and the information disclosed therein, as well as the information that
`
`was omitted and/or misrepresented in the Solicitation Statement.
`
`63.
`
`By virtue of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants, Parent, and Purchaser
`
`violated Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act.
`
`64.
`
`As set forth above, the Individual Defendants, Parent, and Purchaser had the ability
`
`to exercise control over and did control a person or persons who have each violated Section 14(e)
`
`of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9, by their acts and omissions as alleged herein. By virtue of their
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00114-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`positions as controlling persons, these defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the 1934
`
`Act.
`
`65.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff is threatened with
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Enjoining defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding
`
`with, consummating, or closing the Proposed Transaction;
`
`B.
`
`In the event defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and
`
`setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages;
`
`C.
`
`Directing the Individual Defendants to file a Solicitation Statement that does not
`
`contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required in it or
`
`necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading;
`
`D.
`
`Declaring that defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the 1934 Act,
`
`as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder;
`
`E.
`
`Awarding plaintiff the costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
`
`plaintiff’s attorneys’ and experts’ fees; and
`
`F.
`
`Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00114-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
`
`/s/ Gina M. Serra
`Gina M. Serra (#5387)
`Herbert W. Mondros (#3308)
`300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 295-5310
`Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
`Email: gms@rl-legal.com
`Email: hwm@rl-legal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Dated: January 27, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`