Excerpts from Roche’s letter to Ventana Medical


Published on Friday, June 29, 2007

This is from a transcript of a letter sent June 25 to Jack Schuler, chairman of Ventana Medical Systems, from Franz B. Humer, chairman and CEO of Roche:

Dear Jack:

In light of your unwillingness to agree to meet for a discussion concerning a possible business combination between Ventana and Roche, or even to take my call today, we have decided to publicly disclose the proposal, made to you last week.

ADVERTISEMENT
For the past several months, Roche has attempted to engage Ventana’s management and board of directors in a discussion on the merits of a business combination transaction. Unfortunately, Ventana has been unwilling to engage in any meaningful dialogue on this matter. Specifically,

• On January 18, Mr. Christopher Gleeson, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Ventana, had dinner with Dr. Severin Schwan, the Chief Executive Officer of Roche’s Diagnostics division. During dinner, Dr. Schwan raised with Mr. Gleeson Roche’s interest in entering the broader histopathology market and a possible equity investment in Ventana. On January 31, Mr. Gleeson sent Mr. Schwan an e-mail informing him that the Ventana Board of Directors had considered the concept proposed by Roche and was not interested in a situation that would result in another company obtaining an equity position in Ventana.

• On February 12, I sent you a letter in which I reiterated Roche’s strategic interest in entering the broader histopathology market and our desire to pursue a business combination transaction with Ventana. However, in your March 6 letter to me, you indicated that you and your board of directors were not interested in pursuing a strategic transaction with us.

• Last week, I requested an opportunity to meet with you to discuss a new proposal, which I subsequently outlined in my letter to you of June 18. However you have remained unwilling to engage in, or agree to, any meaningful discussion concerning our proposal, and were unwilling to take my call today.

We believe that our proposal presents a unique opportunity for Roche, Ventana and their respective stockholders. In light of the important stockholder interests at issue, Roche believes that it is imperative to continue to pursue this matter - notwithstanding your refusal to date to engage with us concerning a possible negotiated transaction. Accordingly, we will make this letter public simultaneously with my sending it to you.

We believe our proposal should be extremely attractive to your stockholders - in terms of price and certainty of closing. The price, with the large premium it represents, is a full and fair one. We have available cash and cash equivalents sufficient to complete the transaction (and we therefore will not require a financing condition) and do not believe there are any meaningful regulatory impediments. In addition, because we intend to seek to retain your excellent management team and employees and to maintain the company’s headquarters in Arizona, we believe it should be attractive to your management and employees.

While Roche continues to prefer a negotiated transaction with Ventana, our board of directors has authorized management to commence a tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Ventana for $75 per share in cash, which we intend to do promptly.

Very truly yours,

Franz B. Humer

© 2007 Inside Tucson Business. All Rights Reserved
Previous:
Frustrated Roche goes public with hostile takeover of Ventana Medical Systems
Next:
Tucson business leaders see less confidence in economy

Comments

Gail Wilson wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:16 AM:

" Hello
My name is Gail Wilson.
Would you please help me with my son's case? I am sending this to you for "Exposure" if nothing else, please.
The email below was sent 3 days before this Public Defender Robin Lipetkzy "Changed things".

Subject: Re: Jay Shawn Johnson To: "GAIL WILSON" From: "Robin Lipetzky" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:22:16 -0700 Hi Gail- I spoke with the DA again yesterday. I explained that the most that Jay would be willing to do is an additional two to three years. He said they cannot agree to that. So, at this point we will be planning for another trial. The first step is deciding on the right attorney to handle the case within our office. I will be meeting with Jay this morning to discuss the next steps with him. I am extremely disappointed that the DA will not agree to something more reasonable for Jay. I am also determined that we will fight his case in trial with every resource that we have. I'll see you this afternoon. Robin -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone was PLAYING or GOT PLAYED Regarding JAY SHAWN JOHNSON –CASE NO 960691-4 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V JAY SHAWN JOHNSON DEAR ROBIN LIPETZKY, DAVID COLEMAN, RON BOYER, WILLIAM GAGEN,STEPHEN BEDRICK Something very wrong happened on April 25, 2008. I believe ROBIN was playing both sides (Public Defender working for the DA) or ROBIN got played by the District Attorney (according to the DA's quote in the Newspaper). I BELIEVE ROBIN LIPETZKY WAS NOT TRUTHFUL WITH JAY AND INSTEAD OF COUNSELING, ROBIN USED HER POWER OF INFLUENCE, INGRAINED FEAR TO PERSUADE JAY TO ACCEPT THE PLEA. Mr. Gagen and Ron Boyer and let's not forget about Stephen Bedrick (who took this case to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURTS and WON) all the work that you put into this case. For what, so the ROBIN LIPETZKY and her RELIABLE SOURCE can SPIT ON YOUR EFFORTS. When I spoke with Robin on Friday the 18th of April, I ask if she did not believe in Jay, PLEASE refer the case. I believe Robin has assigned herself as JUDGE AND JURY in respect to Jay's case. THIS IS WRONG. YOU MUST CORRECT THIS NOW. I could not remember everything that I would like to say about Jay and this situation. Jay is a wonderful person. As a child he was my right hand "man" even though he was only five years old. I truly don't know what I would have done without him. His three younger brothers were attached to him and vice versa. "

WRITE A COMMENT

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 500 words or fewer.

Comments appear immediately on the site. Editors do review comments periodically during the day, and will remove offensive or off-topic content. You may also report inappropriate comments to the editors. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
Current Word Count:
   

Tucson Twitter

Tucson Twitter

What is Twitter?

Online Dining Page

Flickr

Online Dining Page

Click to Flickr

Flickr

View our Flickr page

Fresh Business Tips

Fresh Business Tips

View Video Feed

Classifieds


Find Real Estate

Real Estate

View All Real Estate

Find a Vehicle

Automotive

View All Automotive