KenChowder: Thanks for your kind post. I found you
Post# of 153832
(Total Views: 845)
Posted On: 08/07/2021 12:50:48 PM
Re: KenChowder #99084
KenChowder: Thanks for your kind post. I found your Sidley Austin client research interesting, but perhaps a bit off target in regard to our mutual speculation as to SA's willingness to represent CYDY.
First of all, I incorporate by reference all of the disclaimers set forth in my post #99065.
With regard to the Merck acquisition of Sigma Aldrich, it occurred in 2014, and SA represented Sigma Aldrich, not Merck. You also referenced SA attorneys who have represented Merck in defending patent infringement lawsuits. No doubt this is accurate, but defending patent infringement suits is far removed from representing participants in mergers or acquisitions. The former requires the skills of litigators and the latter the skills of transactional lawyers. Transactions and litigation, usually in that order, are the 2 main sources of fees in any large law firm, but, aside from cross marketing efforts, the practitioners from each branch tend to go their separate ways. So representing Merck in patent infringement litigation would not necessarily suggest a high likelihood of also handling Merck's M&A transactions.
It may be of some interest, however, that SA's website lists Pfizer, Novartis, Glaxo Smith Kline, and Astra Zeneca among a lengthy list of its major corporate clients. I haven't tried to determine whether any of SA's work for drug companies has involved mergers or acquisitions, but I surmise that such a connection, if it exists, would be relevant only for conflict of interest purposes within SA. In other words, if SA is M&A counsel for any of the above 4 companies, it wouldn't likely represent CYDY in a M&A transaction involving an existing client. It would represent the existing client, which would also be the survivor of the merger or acquisition. SA would likely place Merck into the same category based on its patent infringement representation of Merck.
Accordingly, I surmise that if CYDY is seriously contemplating a M&A transaction, and intends that SA represent its interests, the other party is not likely to be one of the 5 referenced SA drug company clients (unless any of those prior client relationships are no longer in existence). Make no mistake, however. In any M&A work, SA, or any law firm, would prefer to represent the acquirer/survivor company, but if that slot is filled, representing the target is still a very good transactional gig. Which is why SA represented Sigma Aldrich in the Merck acquisition.
Hope you find the above hunches useful.
First of all, I incorporate by reference all of the disclaimers set forth in my post #99065.
With regard to the Merck acquisition of Sigma Aldrich, it occurred in 2014, and SA represented Sigma Aldrich, not Merck. You also referenced SA attorneys who have represented Merck in defending patent infringement lawsuits. No doubt this is accurate, but defending patent infringement suits is far removed from representing participants in mergers or acquisitions. The former requires the skills of litigators and the latter the skills of transactional lawyers. Transactions and litigation, usually in that order, are the 2 main sources of fees in any large law firm, but, aside from cross marketing efforts, the practitioners from each branch tend to go their separate ways. So representing Merck in patent infringement litigation would not necessarily suggest a high likelihood of also handling Merck's M&A transactions.
It may be of some interest, however, that SA's website lists Pfizer, Novartis, Glaxo Smith Kline, and Astra Zeneca among a lengthy list of its major corporate clients. I haven't tried to determine whether any of SA's work for drug companies has involved mergers or acquisitions, but I surmise that such a connection, if it exists, would be relevant only for conflict of interest purposes within SA. In other words, if SA is M&A counsel for any of the above 4 companies, it wouldn't likely represent CYDY in a M&A transaction involving an existing client. It would represent the existing client, which would also be the survivor of the merger or acquisition. SA would likely place Merck into the same category based on its patent infringement representation of Merck.
Accordingly, I surmise that if CYDY is seriously contemplating a M&A transaction, and intends that SA represent its interests, the other party is not likely to be one of the 5 referenced SA drug company clients (unless any of those prior client relationships are no longer in existence). Make no mistake, however. In any M&A work, SA, or any law firm, would prefer to represent the acquirer/survivor company, but if that slot is filled, representing the target is still a very good transactional gig. Which is why SA represented Sigma Aldrich in the Merck acquisition.
Hope you find the above hunches useful.
(16)
(0)