LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL v PHARMACIA Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: C.A. No. 18,276, CourtCode: CC, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff: GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: DE>CC>00018276, Lakes, Nsc, Monsanto, Purchase, Agreement, Sales, Ownership, L-phe, Representatives, Delaware, Projections, Price, Market, Nsc Management, Llc, Manufacturing, Nsc Technologies Company, Supply Agreement, Paragraphs, Negotiators, Material Facts, Sweetener Market, Adverse Effects, Pharmacia Corporation, St1, Offering Memorandum, License Agreement , ContentID: 120240180

Case Documents
1 2000-08-30 AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 100921
30 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 30 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . AMENDED COMPLAINT

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
NSC
DEFENDANTS
MONSANTO
BUSINESS
PURCHASE
AGREEMENT
SALES
OWNERSHIP
L-PHE
REPRESENTATIVES
COURT
DELAWARE
PROJECTIONS
PRICE
MARKET
NSC MANAGEMENT
LLC
MANUFACTURING
NSC TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY
SUPPLY AGREEMENT
PARAGRAPHS
NEGOTIATORS
MATERIAL FACTS
SWEETENER MARKET
ADVERSE EFFECTS
PHARMACIA CORPORATION
ST1
OFFERING MEMORANDUM
LICENSE AGREEMENT
                 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
                              IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL
CORPORATION,
                         Plaintiff,

          V.

PHARMACIA CORPORATION, formerly
known as MONSANTO COMPANY, and
SWEET TECHNOLOGIES,  INC.,

                         Defendants.
                                                   I
                                        AMENDED COMPLAINT

          Plaintiff Great Lakes Chemical Corporation ("Great Lakes"), by its attorneys, Ashby &

Geddes and Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, complains of Defendants Pharmacia Corporation

("Pharmacia"), and Sweet Technologies, Inc. ("STI") (collectively referred to herein as the

"Defendants"), as follows:

                                             The Parties

           1.         Great Lakes is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.

          2.          Pharmacia is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State

of Delaware with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. At all times relevant to

this action, Pharmacia was known as Monsanto Company ((LMonsanto").

          3.          At all relevant times, ST1 was a corporation organized and existing under the

laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. On

information and belief, ST1 was an affiliate of Monsanto.


Doe.  No.:  532624



                                 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  • Plaintiff Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, by its attorneys, Ashby &
  • Geddes and Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, complains of Defendants Pharmacia Corporation
  • State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Indianapolis,
  • Pharmacia was known as Monsanto Company.
  • ST1 was an affiliate of Monsanto.
  • an Ownership Interest Purchase Agreement, dated as of April 8, 1999, which embodied the sale
  • of NSC; and breach of a Supply Agreement between the parties,
  • Defendants concealed from Great Lakes material facts which reduced the
  • value of NSC and thereby induced Great Lakes to purchase NSC for $125 million, a price greatly
  • Agreem.ent, damages, and specific performance of certain provisions of the Supply Agreement.
  • These products included L-Phe and pharmaceutical intermediates and compounds derived from
  • NSC Technologies Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
  • A copy of the Offering Memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
  • the rights to sell L-Phe or aspartame to the sweetener market.
  • arrangement where, after the sale, Monsanto would supply L-Phe to NSC, but NSC's sales of
  • Monsanto would continue to sell aspartame to the sweetener market.
  • such projections were unrealistic when made.
  • in which Defendants' representatives proposed that final bids
  • process for manufacturing Tic-D.
  • presentation on December 17, 1998, as alleged in paragraphs 30 and 3 1, above.
  • lasting adverse effects on NSC.
  • The Role Of NSC Management In The Nepotiations
  • Monsanto's negotiators told NSC management that all
  • Agreement with NSC, a Transition Services and Facilities License Agreement with Great Lakes,
  •    |