Opinion ID: 6800376
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proxy Statement

Text: Appellants challenge three statements in the Proxy. The first statement they challenge is included in the section of the Proxy describing MTS’s fairness opinion. It states: In arriving at its opinion, MTS Securities assumed and relied upon, without assuming liability or responsibility for independent verification, the accuracy and completeness of all of the financial, legal, regulatory, tax, accounting and other information that was publicly available or was provided to, discussed with or reviewed by MTS Securities and upon the assurances of Keryx management that they were not aware of any material relevant developments or matters related to Keryx or Akebia or that may affect the Merger that were omitted or that remained undisclosed to MTS Securities. 2 Keryx retained MTS “to render an opinion as to the fairness of the Merger to Keryx stockholders from a financial perspective.” JA30 ¶ 13. 3 (the “Material Developments Statement”). JA214. Appellants argue that this statement was misleading because “Keryx management was aware of material relevant developments or matters related to Akebia that were likely to affect the Merger and that were omitted or remained undisclosed to MTS.” Appellants Br. at 7-8. Similarly, Appellants challenge a second statement in the MTS fairness opinion section, which states: Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, with respect to the Projections, MTS Securities assumed, with the consent of the Keryx Board and based upon discussions with Keryx management and Akebia management, that each of the Projections was reasonably prepared in good faith and that the Projections, including any estimates of certain potential benefits of the Merger prepared by Keryx management and the timing to achieve such benefits, reflected the best currently available estimates and judgments of Keryx management and Akebia management regarding the future results of operations and financial performance of Keryx and Akebia. (the “Best Estimates Statement”). JA214. Appellants contend that this statement was misleading because “Keryx management did not believe that its projections regarding the future results of operations and financial performance of Akebia, reflected its best currently available estimates and judgments.” Appellants’ Br. at 8. Lastly, Appellants challenge two Keryx statements that characterized the merger as fair (collectively, the “Fairness Statements”). Specifically, in the Notice of Special Meeting of Shareholders, which accompanied the Proxy, Keryx stated that “the Merger Agreement and the Merger are advisable, fair to, and in the best interests of Keryx and its shareholders.” JA114. Likewise, the Proxy indicates that “[t]he Keryx Board has determined that the Merger Agreement and the merger are advisable and in the best interest of Keryx and the Keryx shareholders.” JA122. Appellants assert these 4 statements were misleading because “[Appellees] knew that the Merger was not ‘fair’ to [Keryx’s] stockholders.” Appellants’ Br. at 8.