throbber
Case 1:21-cv-10345 Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`MATTHEW HOPKINS,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`DICERNA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`DOUGLAS M. FAMBROUGH III, J. KEVIN
`BUCHI, STEPHEN DOBERSTEIN, MARTIN
`FREED, PATRICK GRAY, STEPHEN J.
`HOFFMAN, ADAM M. KOPPEL, MARC
`KOZIN, CYNTHIA SMITH, NOVO
`NORDISK A/S, and NNUS NEW
`RESEARCH, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 November 18, 2021
`
`(the “Proposed Transaction”), pursuant to which Dicerna Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Dicerna” or the
`
`“Company”) will be acquired by Novo Nordisk A/S (“Parent”) and NNUS New Research, Inc.
`
`(“Purchaser”).
`
`2.
`
`On November 17, 2021, Dicerna’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 Dicerna’s outstanding
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10345 Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`common stock for $38.25 in cash per share. The Tender Offer is set to expire on December 23,
`
`2021.
`
`3.
`
`On November 24, 2021, 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 Dicerna common stock.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Dicerna is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive
`
`offices at 75 Hayden Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421. Dicerna’s common stock trades on the
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10345 Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`NASDAQ, which is headquartered in New York, New York, under the ticker symbol “DRNA.”
`
`10.
`
`Defendant Douglas M. Fambrough III is President, Chief Executive Officer, and a
`
`director of the Company.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant J. Kevin Buchi is Chairman of the Board of the Company.
`
`Defendant Stephen Doberstein is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant Martin Freed is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant Patrick Gray is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant Stephen J. Hoffman is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant Adam M. Koppel is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant Marc Kozin is a director of the Company.
`
`Defendant Cynthia Smith 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 Danish aktieselskab and a party to the Merger Agreement.
`
`Defendant Purchaser is a Delaware corporation, an indirect wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`
`Background of the Company and the Proposed Transaction
`
`22.
`
`Dicerna is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing, and
`
`commercializing medicines that are designed to leverage ribonucleic acid interference to silence
`
`selectively genes that cause or contribute to disease.
`
`23.
`
`On November 17, 2021, Dicerna’s Board caused the Company to enter into the
`
`Merger Agreement.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10345 Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Purchaser commenced the Tender
`
`Offer to acquire all of Dicerna’s outstanding common stock for $38.25 in cash per share.
`
`25.
`
`According to the press release announcing the Proposed Transaction:
`
`Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: DRNA) today announced that it has
`entered into a definitive agreement with Novo Nordisk under which Novo Nordisk
`will acquire Dicerna, a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of
`investigational ribonucleic acid interference (RNAi) therapeutics, for $38.25 per
`share in cash, which represents a total equity value of $3.3 billion and a premium
`of 80% to Dicerna’s closing price on November 17, 2021. The transaction was
`unanimously approved by the Dicerna Board of Directors and the Board of
`Directors of Novo Nordisk. . . .
`
`Under the terms of the agreement, Novo Nordisk, through a subsidiary, will initiate
`a tender offer to acquire all outstanding shares of Dicerna common stock at a price
`of $38.25 per share in cash. The closing of the tender offer will be subject to certain
`conditions, including the tender of shares representing at least a majority of the total
`number of Dicerna’s outstanding shares, the expiration of the waiting period under
`the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act and other customary
`conditions. Upon the successful completion of the tender offer, Novo Nordisk’s
`acquisition subsidiary will be merged into Dicerna, and any remaining shares of
`common stock of Dicerna will be cancelled and converted into the right to receive
`the same $38.25 per share price payable in the tender offer. The transaction is
`expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2021.
`
`Novo Nordisk is represented by Evercore as exclusive financial advisor and Davis
`Polk & Wardwell LLP as legal advisor. For Dicerna, Centerview Partners LLC is
`acting as lead financial advisor, SVB Leerink is acting as financial advisor, and
`Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Goodwin Procter LLP are acting
`as legal advisors.
`
`The Solicitation Statement Omits Material Information, Rendering It False and Misleading
`
`26.
`
`Defendants filed the Solicitation Statement with the SEC in connection with the
`
`Proposed Transaction.
`
`27.
`
`As set forth below, the Solicitation Statement omits material information with
`
`respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading.
`
`28.
`
`First, the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the
`
`Company’s financial projections.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10345 Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`29.
`
`The Solicitation Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate the
`
`projections; (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics; and (iii) the non-risk-adjusted
`
`projections.
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`31.
`
`Second, the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the
`
`analyses performed by the Company’s financial advisors in connection with the Proposed
`
`Transaction, Centerview Partners LLC (“Centerview”) and SVB Leerink (“SVB”).
`
`32. With respect to Centerview’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 rate; and (iii) the number of fully-
`
`diluted outstanding shares used in the analysis.
`
`33. With respect to Centerview’s Analyst Price Target Analysis, the Solicitation
`
`Statement fails to disclose: (i) the price targets observed in the analysis; and (ii) the sources thereof.
`
`34. With respect to SVB’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Solicitation Statement
`
`fails to disclose: (i) the terminal values of the Company; and (ii) the individual inputs and
`
`assumptions underlying the discount rates and perpetuity growth rate.
`
`35. 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.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10345 Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`36.
`
`Third, the Solicitation Statement fails to disclose the amount of compensation
`
`SVB’s affiliates received for the commercial banking services it provided to Dicerna.
`
`37.
`
`The omission of the above-referenced material information renders the Solicitation
`
`Statement false and misleading.
`
`38.
`
`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)
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`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[.]
`
`41.
`
`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.
`
`42.
`
`The Solicitation Statement was prepared, reviewed, and/or disseminated by
`
`defendants.
`
`43.
`
`The Solicitation Statement misrepresented and/or omitted material facts in
`
`connection with the Proposed Transaction as set forth above.
`
`44.
`
`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.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10345 Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`45.
`
`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.
`
`46.
`
`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.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`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.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT II
`
`
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`(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.
`
`52.
`
`Rule 14d-9(d) states, in relevant part:
`
`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[.]
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10345 Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`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.”
`
`53.
`
`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.
`
`54.
`
`Defendants knowingly or with deliberate recklessness omitted the material
`
`information set forth above, causing statements therein to be materially incomplete and
`
`misleading.
`
`55.
`
`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.
`
`56.
`
`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
`
`
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Dicerna within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their
`
`positions as directors of Dicerna and participation in and/or awareness of the Company’s
`
`operations 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
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10345 Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`dissemination of the various statements that plaintiff contends are false and misleading.
`
`59.
`
`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.
`
`60.
`
`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.
`
`61.
`
`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.
`
`62.
`
`By virtue of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants, Parent, and Purchaser
`
`violated Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act.
`
`63.
`
`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
`
`positions as controlling persons, these defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the 1934
`
`Act.
`
`64.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff is threatened with
`
`irreparable harm.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-10345 Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`65.
`
`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 1:21-cv-10345 Document 1 Filed 12/03/21 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
`
`/s/ Gina M. Serra
`Seth D. Rigrodsky
`Timothy J. MacFall
`Gina M. Serra
`Vincent A. Licata
`825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
`Garden City, NY 11530
`(516) 683-3516
`sdr@rl-legal.com
`tjm@rl-legal.com
`gms@rl-legal.com
`vl@rl-legal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Dated: December 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket