Source: http://ir.sparktx.com/node/9801/html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:44:28+00:00

Document:
☒ Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing with which the offsetting fee was previously paid. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
☐ Check the box if the filing relates solely to preliminary communications made before the commencement of a tender offer.
☒ third-party tender offer subject to Rule 14d-1.
☐ issuer tender offer subject to Rule 13e-4.
☐ going-private transaction subject to Rule 13e-3.
☐ amendment to Schedule 13D under Rule 13d-2.
This Amendment No. 3 to the Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO amends and supplements the Schedule TO filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2019 (as it may be amended and supplemented from time to time, the “Schedule TO”) and relates to the offer by 022019 Merger Subsidiary, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Roche Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Parent”), to purchase all outstanding shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share of Spark Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Spark”), at $114.50 per Share, net to the seller in cash, without interest and less applicable withholding taxes, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Offer to Purchase, dated March 7, 2019, and in the related Letter of Transmittal, copies of which are incorporated by reference to Exhibits (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii), respectively, of the Schedule TO (which, together with any amendments or supplements thereto, collectively constitute the “Offer”).
All information contained in the Offer to Purchase and the related Letter of Transmittal, including all schedules thereto, is hereby incorporated herein by reference in response to Items 1 through 9 and Item 11 in the Schedule TO. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this Amendment have the meanings given to such terms in the Offer to Purchase.
Items 1 through 9; and Item 11.
1. The information set forth in Section 16—“Certain Legal Matters; Regulatory Approvals—Regulatory Matters” of the Offer to Purchase under the “U.S. Antitrust” subsection is hereby amended and restated in its entirety and replaced by the paragraphs set forth below.
Division”) and certain waiting period requirements have been satisfied. The purchase of Shares pursuant to the Offer and the Merger is subject to such requirements.
Each of Parent and Spark filed a Premerger Notification and Report Form under the HSR Act with respect to the Offer and the Merger with the Antitrust Division and the FTC on March 1, 2019. On March 18, 2019, Parent withdrew the March 1, 2019 filing and refiled a Premerger Notification and Report Form under the HSR Act with respect to the Offer and the Merger with the Antitrust Division and the FTC. Parent has withdrawn the March 18, 2019 filing effective on April 2, 2019 and intends to refile a Premerger Notification and Report Form under the HSR Act with respect to the Offer and the Merger with the Antitrust Division and the FTC on or about April 10, 2019. Following such refiling, the waiting period applicable to the purchase of the Shares pursuant to the Offer will expire at 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on or about April 25, 2019, but this period may be shortened if the FTC or the Antitrust Division, as applicable, grants “early termination” of the waiting period, or it may change if Parent voluntarily withdraws and refiles its Premerger Notification and Report Form in order to restart the 15-day waiting period or if the reviewing agency issues a formal request for additional information and documentary material. If such a request is made, the waiting period will be extended until 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on the date that is ten calendar days after substantial compliance by Parent with such request. Thereafter, such waiting period can be extended only by court order or agreement of Parent, Purchaser, Spark and the Antitrust Division or the FTC, as applicable. See “—Section 15—Conditions to the Offer” for certain conditions to the Offer, including conditions with respect to certain governmental actions, and “—Section 13—The Transaction Documents—The Merger Agreement—Termination” for certain termination rights pursuant to the Merger Agreement with respect to certain governmental actions. It is also possible that Parent and Spark could enter into a timing agreement with the reviewing agency that could affect the timing of the closing of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.
On April 3, 2019, in connection with the withdrawn Premerger Notification and Report Form under the HSR Act, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Parent extended the expiration of the Offer. The Offer was previously scheduled to expire at 12:00 midnight, New York City Time, at the end of the day on April 3, 2019. The expiration date of the Offer is extended to 12:00 midnight, New York City Time, at the end of the day on May 2, 2019, unless further extended. The Depositary has advised us that, as of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on April 2, 2019, approximately 11,259,852 Shares (none of which were tendered by Notice of Guaranteed Delivery) had been validly tendered and received, and not validly withdrawn, pursuant to the Offer, representing approximately 29.4% of the outstanding Shares.
On April 3, 2019, Parent issued a media release relating to the withdrawn Premerger Notification and Report Form and announcing the extension of the Offer. The full text of the press release is attached as Exhibit (a)(5)(xiv) to the Schedule TO and is incorporated herein by reference.
All references to (i) “12:00 midnight, New York City Time, at the end of the day on April 3, 2019” or (ii) “12:00 Midnight, New York City Time, at the end of the day on April 3, 2019” forth in the Offer to Purchase (Exhibit (a)(1)(i)), Letter of Transmittal (Exhibit (a)(1)(ii)), Notice of Guaranteed Delivery (Exhibit (a)(1)(iii)), Letter to Brokers, Dealers, Commercial Banks, Trust Companies and Other Nominees (Exhibit (a)(1)(iv)), and Letter to Clients for use by Brokers, Dealers, Commercial Banks, Trust Companies and Other Nominees (Exhibit (a)(1)(v)) are hereby amended and replaced with (i) “12:00 midnight, New York City time, at the end of the day on May 2, 2019” or (ii) “12:00 Midnight, New York City time, at the end of the day on May 2, 2019”, respectively.
4. The information set forth in Section 16—“Certain Legal Matters; Regulatory Approvals—Litigation Related to the Merger” of the Offer to Purchase is hereby amended and restated in its entirety and replaced by the paragraphs set forth below.
As of April 3, 2019, we are aware of three lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, two of which are putative class action lawsuits, and one lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenging the disclosures concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, filed by purported Spark stockholders against various combinations of Spark, the members of the Spark Board, Parent and Purchaser. The actions are captioned Wang v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00479, Kent v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00485, Newman v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00528 and Gomez v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02487. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the defendants violated various combinations of Sections 14(d), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14d-9 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose purportedly material information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC in connection with the Offer. The complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the expiration of the Offer and/or consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, or in the event that an injunction is not awarded, unspecified money damages, and an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Parent and Purchaser believe that the actions are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against all such claims. The full complaints are attached hereto as Exhibits (a)(5)(x), (a)(5)(xi), (a)(5)(xii) and (a)(5)(xiii) respectively.
Lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Offer, the Merger or any other transactions referenced herein may be filed in the future.
KATHERINE A. HIGH, JEFFREY D.
to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Spark (the “Tender Offer”).
2. On February 22, 2019, Spark entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) by and among the Company and Roche, pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub will merge with and into Spark, the separate existence of Merger Sub will cease and Spark will continue as the surviving corporation and as a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck (the “Proposed Transaction”).
3. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each shareholder of Spark common stock will be entitled to receive $114.50 in cash (the “Offer Price”).
4. On March 7, 2019, in order to convince Spark’s public common shareholders to tender their shares, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the “Recommendation Statement”) with the SEC.
5. In particular, the Recommendation Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for Spark; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by Spark’s financial advisor, Centerview Partners LLC (“Centerview”) in support of its fairness opinion.
6. The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire at 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on April 3, 2019 (the “Expiration Time”). It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Recommendation Statement is disclosed to the Company’s shareholders prior to the Expiration Time so they can properly determine whether to tender their shares.
consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information discussed below is disclosed to Spark’s public common shareholders sufficiently in advance of the Expiration Time or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants’ violations of the Exchange Act.
8. 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(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-9.
9. Personal jurisdiction exists over each Defendant either because the Defendant conducts business in or maintains operations in this District, or is an individual who is either present in this District for jurisdictional purposes or has sufficient minimum contacts with this District as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over each Defendant by this Court permissible under the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. “Where a federal statute such as Section 27 of the [Exchange] Act confers nationwide service of process, the question becomes whether the party has sufficient contacts with the United States, not any particular state.” Sec. Inv’r Prot. Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1315 (9th Cir. 1985). “[S]o long as a defendant has minimum contacts with the United States, Section 27 of the Act confers personal jurisdiction over the defendant in any federal district court.” Id. at 1316.
10. Venue is proper in this District under Section 27 of the ExchangeAct,15U.S.C.§78aa, as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because Defendants are found or are inhabitants or transact business in this District. Indeed, Spark’s common stock trades on the Nasdaq, which is also headquartered in this District. See, e.g., United States v. Svoboda, 347 F.3d 471, 484 n.13 (2d Cir. 2003) (collecting cases).
11. Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant hereto, the owner of Spark common stock.
13. Defendant Steven M. Altschuler is a director of the Company.
14. Defendant Larks Ekman a director of the Company.
15. Defendant Katherine A. High is a director of the Company.
16. Defendant Jeffrey D. Marrazzo is Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Company.
17. Defendant Anand Mehra is a director of the Company.
18. Defendant Vincent Milano is a director of the Company.
19. Defendant Robert J. Perez is a director of the Company.
20. Defendant Elliot Sigal is a director of the Company.
21. Defendant Lota Zoth is a director of the Company.
retinal dystrophy and viable retinal cells. The company's gene therapy product candidates comprise SPK-8011 and SPK-8016 for hemophilia; SPK-7001 for choroideremia; and SPK-9001 for hemophilia B. It is also developing other liver-directed gene therapies, including SPK-3006 for Pompe disease; and neurodegenerative disease product candidates to address Huntington's disease and others, as well as TPP1 deficiency, which is a form of Batten disease. The company's preclinical programs targets inherited retinal diseases, including Stargardt's disease. The company has collaboration agreement with Pfizer, Inc. for the development and commercialization of SPK- FIX product candidates in its gene therapy program for the treatment of hemophilia B. It also has licensing and commercialization agreement with Novartis to develop and commercialize voretigene neparvovec outside the United States. Merck, a leading global biopharmaceutical company known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, has been inventing for life, bringing forward medicines and vaccines for many of the world’s most challenging diseases.
24. On February 22, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement.
25. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, the Company’s current shareholders only expect to receive $114.50 in cash for each share of Spark common stock they own.
closing price on 22 February 2019 and a premium of approximately 19% to Spark Therapeutics’52 week high share price on 9 July 2018. The merger agreement has been unanimously approved by the boards of Spark Therapeutics and Roche.
Spark Therapeutics’ lead clinical asset is SPK-8011, a novel gene therapy for the treatment of haemophilia A, which is expected to start Phase 3 in 2019. Spark Therapeutics also has SPK-8016 in a phase 1/2 trial aimed at addressing the haemophilia A inhibitor population. Additionally, Spark Therapeutics was the first company to receive FDA approval for a gene therapy for a genetic disease in 2017.
LUXTURNA® (voretigene neparvovec-rzyl), a one-time gene therapy product indicated for the treatment of patients with confirmed biallelic RPE65 mutation- associated retinal dystrophy is currently marketed in the US by Spark Therapeutics. The European Commission granted marketing authorisation for LUXTURNA in 2018.
Spark Therapeutics’ additional clinical assets include: SPK-9001, an investigational gene therapy for the potential treatment of haemophilia B in Phase 3 and SPK-7001 for choroideremia in Phase 1/2. The company is also developing SPK-3006 for Pompe disease and SPK-1001 for CLN2 disease (a form of Batten disease) which are expected to be ready for clinical development in 2019, as well as additional preclinical programmes for Huntington's disease and Stargardt disease. . . .
27. On March 7, 2019, Defendants filed a materially incomplete and misleading Recommendation Statement with the SEC. The Individual Defendants were obligated to carefully review the Recommendation Statement before it was filed with the SEC and disseminated to the Company’s shareholders to ensure that it did not contain any material misrepresentations or omissions. However, the Recommendation Statement misrepresents or omits material information that is necessary for Spark’s public common shareholders to make an informed decision concerning whether to tender their shares, in violation of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-9.
28. First, the Recommendation Statement fails to fully disclose Spark’s financial projections. Specifically, the Company’s financial projections in the Recommendation Statement fails to disclose, for each Case 1 through 4: (i) all line items used to calculate unlevered free cash flow; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.
29. Furthermore, the Recommendation Statement fails to provide a concrete timeline for the creation of Case 1 through 4 of the Company’s projections (ie were all created on the same date or at various different point in time).
shareholders are unable to fully understand these analyses and, thus, are unable to determine what weight, if any, to place on Centerview’s fairness opinion in determining whether to tender their shares in the Tender Offer. This omitted information, if disclosed, would significantly alter the total mix of information available to Spark’s common shareholders.
31. With respect to Centerview’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Solicitation Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate unlevered free cash flow; (ii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from 11.0% to 13.0%; (iii) the implied terminal value of the Company; (iv) the value of tax savings from usage of net operating losses and future losses; (v) the value of preclinical non-Luxturna / SPK-9001 / SPK- 8011 / SPK-8016 /SPK-3006 / Huntington’s program pipeline; and (vi) the number of fully-diluted outstanding Company shares.
32. With respect to Centerview’s Analyst Price Target Analysis, the Solicitation Statement fails to disclose: (i) the price targets observed by Centerview in the analysis; and (ii) the sources thereof.
33. With respect to Centerview’s Premia Paid Analysis, the Solicitation Statement fails to disclose the premiums paid in the transactions observed by Centerview in the analysis.
There is substantial leeway to determine each of these, and any change can markedly affect the discounted cash flow value. For example, a change in the discount rate by one percent on a stream of cash flows in the billions of dollars can change the discounted cash flow value by tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars… This issue arises not only with a discounted cash flow analysis, but with each of the other valuation techniques. This dazzling variability makes it difficult to rely, compare, or analyze the valuations underlying a fairness opinion unless full disclosure is made of the various inputs in the valuation process, the weight assigned for each, and the rationale underlying these choices. The substantial discretion and lack of guidelines and standards also makes the process vulnerable to manipulation to arrive at the “right” answer for fairness. This raises a further dilemma in light of the conflicted nature of the investment banks who often provide these opinions.
Id. at 1577-78 (emphasis added). Without the above-mentioned information, Spark shareholders cannot evaluate for themselves the reliability of Centerview’s analyses, make a meaningful determination of whether the illustrative present value per share reference ranges reflect the true value of the Company or was the result of Centerview’s unreasonable judgment, and make an informed decision regarding whether to tender their shares in the Tender Offer.
35. Defendants’ failure to provide the foregoing material information renders the statements in the Recommendation Statement false and/or materially misleading.
36. In sum, the omission of the above-referenced information renders the Recommendation Statement materially incomplete and misleading, in contravention of the Exchange Act. Absent disclosure of the foregoing material information prior to the Expiration Time, Plaintiff will be unable to make an informed decision concerning whether to tender his shares, and he is thus threatened with irreparable harm, warranting the injunctive relief sought herein.
37. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
38. Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act provides that it is 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…” 15 U.S.C. §78n(e).
39. Defendants violated § 14(e) of the Exchange Act by issuing the Recommendation Statement in which they made untrue statements of material facts or failed to state all material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, in connection with the Tender Offer. Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the Recommendation Statement failed to disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
40. The Recommendation Statement was prepared, reviewed, and/or disseminated by Defendants. It misrepresented and/or omitted material facts, including material information about the consideration offered to shareholders via the Tender Offer and the intrinsic value of the Company.
therefore reckless, as they had reasonable grounds to believe material facts existed that were misstated or omitted from the Recommendation Statement, but nonetheless failed to obtain and disclose such information to shareholders although they could have done so without extraordinary effort.
42. The omissions and incomplete and misleading statements in the Recommendation Statement are material in that a reasonable shareholder would consider them important in deciding whether to tender their shares or seek appraisal. In addition, a reasonable investor would view the information identified above which has been omitted from the Recommendation Statement as altering the “total mix” of information made available to shareholders.
43. Defendants knowingly or with deliberate recklessness omitted the material information identified above from the Recommendation Statement, causing certain statements therein to be materially incomplete and therefore misleading. Indeed, while Defendants undoubtedly had access to and/or reviewed the omitted material information in connection with approving the Proposed Transaction, they allowed it to be omitted from the Recommendation Statement, rendering certain portions of the Recommendation Statement materially incomplete and therefore misleading.
44. The misrepresentations and omissions in the Recommendation Statement are material to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff will be deprived of his entitlement to make a fully informed decision if such misrepresentations and omissions are not corrected prior to the Expiration Time.
45. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
46. Defendants have caused the Recommendation Statement to be issued with the intention of soliciting shareholder support of the Proposed Transaction.
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.
Information required in solicitation or recommendation. 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.
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.
50. The omission of information from a recommendation statement will violate Section 14(d)(4) and Rule 14d-9(d) if other SEC regulations specifically require disclosure of the omitted information.
it omits material facts, including those set forth above, which omissions render the Recommendation Statement false and/or misleading. Defendants knowingly or with deliberate recklessness omitted the material information identified above from the Recommendation Statement, causing certain statements therein to be materially incomplete and therefore misleading. Indeed, while Defendants undoubtedly had access to and/or reviewed the omitted material information in connection with approving the Proposed Transaction, they allowed it to be omitted from the Recommendation Statement, rendering certain portions of the Recommendation Statement materially incomplete and therefore misleading.
52. The misrepresentations and omissions in the Recommendation Statement are material to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff will be deprived of his entitlement to make a fully informed decision if such misrepresentations and omissions are not corrected prior to the Expiration Date.
53. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
54. The Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of Spark within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as officers and/or directors of Spark, and participation in and/or awareness of the Company’s operations and/or intimate knowledge of the incomplete and misleading statements contained in the Recommendation 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 materially incomplete and misleading.
55. Each of the Individual Defendants was provided with or had unlimited access to copies of the Recommendation Statement and other statements 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 the statements to be corrected.
56. In particular, 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 or influence the particular transactions giving rise to the Exchange Act violations alleged herein, and exercised the same. The Recommendation Statement contains the unanimous recommendation of each of the Individual Defendants to approve the Tender Offer. They were thus directly involved in preparing the Recommendation Statement.
57. In addition, as the Proxy sets forth at length, and as described herein, the Individual Defendants were involved in negotiating, reviewing, and approving the Merger Agreement. The Proxy purports to describe the various issues and information that the Individual Defendants reviewed and considered. The Individual Defendants participated in drafting and/or gave their input on the content of those descriptions.
58. By virtue of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
59. As set forth above, the Individual Defendants had the ability to exercise control over and did control a person or persons who have each violated Sections 14(e) and 14(d)(4) and Rule 14d-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 Exchange Act. As a direct and proximate result of Individual Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed.
equitable powers can Plaintiff be fully protected from the immediate and irreparable injury that Defendants’ actions threaten to inflict.
D. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1391
 v. 
 §78
 § 14