Business

Allergan shareholders to meet in December amid lawsuit

Allergan shareholders will get their special meeting that could facilitate a takeover by Canadian drug company Valeant — but not until Dec. 18.

The botox maker said Tuesday it had set that date for the meeting in a filing response to a Delaware Chancery Court lawsuit brought by its biggest shareholder, Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square hedge fund, and Valeant.

The lawsuit, which seeks to throw out Allergan’s shareholder bylaws and stop the company from finding another merger partner before the shareholder meeting, was filed on Friday.

Allergan’s bylaws allow for a special shareholder meeting to be held within 120 days after at least 25 percent of its investors request the meeting, but they require copious documentation.

That would give Allergan until Saturday, Dec. 20.

Ackman and Valeant went to court shortly after Ackman corralled 31 percent of Allergan shareholders to demand it hold a special meeting to oust six of Allergan’s directors. The group includes some of the longest-standing and largest shareholders of the company, Ackman and Valeant said.

The vote could pave the way for a new board to accept Valeant’s offer.

Allergan said it will see if those shareholders qualify at its next board meeting on Sept. 4. By that date, Ackman hopes to have even more shareholders signed on for the meeting.

Pershing Square and Valeant have asked the Delaware court to hear the case within 21 days, which Allergan opposes.

“Plaintiffs here are seeking to rush the vote not only for the tactical benefit of hampering the Allergan board’s ability to consider alternatives, but also to ensure the vote occurs before all material information about plaintiffs’ securities law violations comes to light,” Allergan said in its filing.

The company is also suing Ackman and Valeant in federal court over insider trading allegations, and said in its Tuesday Delaware court filing that it would pursue a preliminary injunction and hopes to have a hearing by Dec. 8.

Last week, a California federal court judge refused to fast-track the case so it could be resolved before the special meeting occurred.