As previously disclosed, on May 4, 2021, Chiasma, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company” or “Chiasma”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with Amryt Pharma plc, a public limited company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales (“Amryt”), and Acorn Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Amryt (“Merger Sub”), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into Chiasma (the “Merger”), with Chiasma surviving as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Amryt. On July 2, 2021, Chiasma filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) a definitive proxy statement (the “Proxy Statement”) with respect to the special meeting of Chiasma’s stockholders scheduled to be held on August 3, 2021 in connection with the Merger.
Litigation Related to the Merger
In connection with the proposed Merger eight complaints have been filed by purported Chiasma stockholders. On June 23, 2021, a purported stockholder filed a case captioned Yurkovich v. Chiasma, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-05510, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“S.D.N.Y.”) against Chiasma and its directors. On June 29, 2021, a purported stockholder filed a complaint in S.D.N.Y. against Chiasma, its directors, Amryt, and Merger Sub, in a case captioned Dillion v. Chiasma, Inc. et al., No. 1:21-cv-05641. Also on June 29, 2021, a complaint was filed by a purported stockholder against Chiasma and its directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in a case captioned Lawlor v. Chiasma, Inc. et al., No. 1:21-cv-03688. On June 30, 2021, a complaint was filed in S.D.N.Y. by a purported stockholder against Chiasma and its directors in a case captioned Marshall v. Chiasma, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-05651. On July 1, 2021, a purported stockholder filed a complaint in S.D.N.Y. against Chiasma and its directors in a case captioned Raul v. Chiasma, Inc., et. al., No. 1:21-cv-05693. On July 14, 2021, a purported stockholder filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Chiasma, its directors, Amryt, and Merger Sub, in a case captioned Waterman v. Chiasma, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-03127. On July 16, 2021, a complaint was filed in S.D.N.Y. by a purported stockholder against Chiasma and its directors in a case captioned Jenkins v. Chiasma, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-06128 (S.D.N.Y.). On July 22, 2021, a purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Chiasma and its directors in a case captioned Walker v. Chiasma, Inc., et al (No. 1:21-cv-01056) (together, with the other cases, the “Merger Actions”). The complaints generally allege that the preliminary registration statement, filed with the SEC on June 15, 2021, contained materially incomplete and misleading information concerning financial projections for Chiasma and Amryt, the key inputs for the financial analyses performed by Duff & Phelps, a Kroll Business operating as Kroll, LLC, the sales process leading up to the proposed transaction, potential conflicts of interest involving Torreya Capital, LLC, and the Background of the Merger. The lawsuits seek various remedies, including a preliminary and/or permanent injunction prohibiting consummation of the proposed transaction, rescission of the Merger Agreement or any of the terms thereof or, in the event the transaction is already consummated, awarding the plaintiff rescissory damages, an accounting and costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees and expenses. Given the early stage of the proceedings, it is impossible to predict the outcome or to estimate possible loss or range of loss, if any. Chiasma believes the complaints are without merit. If additional similar complaints are filed, absent new or significantly different allegations, Chiasma will not necessarily disclose such additional filings.
While the Company believes the Merger Actions lack any merit and that the disclosures in the Proxy Statement comply fully with applicable law, solely in order to avoid the expense and distraction of litigation, the Company has determined voluntarily to supplement the Proxy Statement with the supplemental disclosures set forth below (the “Supplemental Disclosures”).
Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable law of the Supplemental Disclosures. To the contrary, the Company specifically denies all allegations that any of the Supplemental Disclosures, or any other additional disclosures, were or are material or otherwise required.
The Supplemental Disclosures will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders of the Company in connection with the Merger or the timing of the special meeting of the Company’s stockholders scheduled for August 3, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time.