LAVAL, Quebec—Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.
(NYSE: VRX and TSX: VRX) announced that the parties in two lawsuits related to Valeant’s and Pershing Square Holdings’
unsuccessful attempt in 2014 to acquire Allergan have preliminarily agreed to resolve the claims of the litigation for $290 million, subject to the court's approval. Valeant will pay $96.25 million, or 33 percent, of the settlement under the terms of a recently revised Litigation Management Agreement with the other defendants, according to Valeant’s announcement late last week.
Additionally, as part of the agreement, Valeant said it and the other defendants admit no wrongdoing.
Pershing Square announced that it will pay $193.75 million toward the settlement.
Previously, Valeant and Pershing Square had agreed to a 60 percent-40 percent split of the settlement costs, with Valeant paying the larger portion, as VMAIL reported
“We believe this agreement to resolve the legacy litigation is in the best interests of the company, because it enables us to focus our attention and resources on the transformation of Valeant,” chairman and chief executive officer Joseph C. Papa said in the announcement. “Though we always have remained confident in our position and were prepared to try these cases on their merits, this agreement will eliminate disruption to our business."
Valeant is the parent company of leading contact lens marketer Bausch + Lomb.
In a separate statement, Pershing Square chief executive Bill Ackman said the firm continues to believe “the case had absolutely no merit.” He added, “We decided, however, that it was in the best interest of our investors to settle the case now instead of continuing to spend substantial time and resources pursuing the litigation.”
Pershing Square also noted that “Valeant and Pershing Square had different views on the desirability and timing of settling the case, which previously prevented settlement. On Dec. 19, 2017, Pershing Square acquired control of the settlement of the litigation in exchange for agreeing to pay a greater percentage of the settlement amount.”
The deal requires a U.S. judge in California to approve the settlement terms.