Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Galena Biopharma, Inc. Message Board

  • maxpain42@ymail.com maxpain42 Apr 12, 2012 2:03 PM Flag

    LAWSUITS

    Galena has been sued by some of their warrant holders, and they could be found liable to repurchase their warrants.

    On November 21, 2011, Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd. (“Hudson Bay”) filed a Complaint against Galena in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”), captioned Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd. v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., 11 Civ. 8432 (JPO), alleging that our plan to partially spin off RXi and related actions taken by us in preparation for the spin-off gives Hudson Bay the right to require us to repurchase the warrants acquired by Hudson Bay in our April 2011 underwritten public offering.

    Hudson Bay also seeks related declaratory and injunctive relief.

    On January 12, 2012, three other warrant holders affiliated with each other filed a Complaint in the Court, captioned Tenor Opportunity Fund, Ltd., Aria Opportunity Fund, Ltd., and Parsoon Opportunity Fund, Ltd. v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., 12 CIV 0260, and on January 20, 2012 and February 2, 2012, respectively, two other warrant holders filed their own Complaints in the Court, captioned Cranshire Capital Master Fund, Ltd. v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., 12 CIV 0493 and Iroquois Master Fund, Ltd. v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., 12 CIV 0839, respectively. In these Complaints, which are substantially similar to the previous Complaints filed in the Court, the various warrant holders also claim that our planned spin-off of RXi and related actions give them the right to require us to repurchase our outstanding warrants held by them. According to the allegations in the Complaints, the repurchase price of the plaintiffs’ warrants would amount to approximately $5.2 million in the aggregate.

    On March 21, 2012, Galena received letters from each of the plaintiff-warrant holders withdrawing their repurchase demands with respect to their warrants covering an aggregate of 6,350,000 shares out of a total of 6,850,000 shares of common stock purchasable under their warrants (the “Withdrawal Notices”). After giving effect to the Withdrawal Notices, the plaintiff-warrant holders continued to demand that we repurchase their warrants covering the balance of 500,000 shares of common stock in the aggregate. Based on the plaintiff-warrant holders’ claims in their Complaints, we believe that the repurchase price for these warrants is $0.71 per underlying share, or an aggregate of $355,000. On March 27, 2012, we tendered to the plaintiff-warrant holders an aggregate of $355,000 as payment in full of the repurchase price for those warrants.

    Galena believes that the Withdrawal Notices and our tender of payment as described above render moot the majority of the claims of the plaintiff-warrant holders in their Complaints, although the Withdrawal Notices purport to reserve all rights of the plaintiff-warrant holders under the Complaints. On March 29, 2012, the plaintiff-warrant holders acknowledged receipt of our tender of funds, but purported to take issue with the repurchase price.

    The plaintiff-warrant holders also expressed their intention to continue to press that claim in the litigation, as well as claims for attorneys’ fees and for an adjustment of the exercise price of their warrants as to which their repurchase demands were withdrawn pursuant to the Withdrawal Notices.

    If Galena were to become liable to repurchase the plaintiffs’ warrants, we may not have on hand sufficient funds to satisfy the liability and to meet our other obligations as they come due, which could raise doubts as to our ability to continue as a going concern.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
 
GALE
1.40-0.0300(-2.10%)Apr 17 4:00 PMEDT