On September 18, 2019, Mr. Lobo called Mr. Palmisano and informed him that after internal deliberations, Stryker proposed to acquire Wright for $30.00 per share in cash, but Mr. Lobo did not propose additional terms for a potential transaction.
On September 22, 2019, Wright and Stryker entered into a confidentiality agreement, which included a12-month standstill provision.
On September 24, 2019, Wright provided Stryker access to an electronic data room that includednon-public information about Wright. Between September 24, 2019 and October 18, 2019, representatives of Wright heldin-person diligence meetings and calls with representatives of Stryker regarding various aspects of Wright’s business. Wright and its representatives also hosted visits at certain of its facilities, and responded to extensive diligence requests, from representatives of Stryker.
On September 25, 2019, Wright sent a letter to Stryker outlining Wright’s process for evaluating a potential transaction, including that final price proposals would be due on October 24, 2019.
On each of September 27, 2019 and October 3, 2019, representatives of Ropes & Gray LLP (“Ropes & Gray”), outside counsel to Wright, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (“Skadden”), outside counsel to Stryker, held telephonic meetings to discuss the structure of a potential transaction.
On October 7, 2019, representatives of Wright met with representatives of Stryker in Boston, Massachusetts to make presentations about Wright and to hold diligence sessions focused on specific functional areas of Wright.
On October 8, 2019, Ropes & Gray distributed a draft purchase agreement to Stryker. The draft agreement included, among other things, a termination fee payable by Wright in certain circumstances equal to 1% of Wright’s equity value and a commitment by the acquiror to take all actions necessary to obtain regulatory clearances for the transaction.
On October 21, 2019, Skadden, on behalf of Stryker, sent Ropes & Gray a revised draft of the purchase agreement. The revised draft purchase agreement provided, among other things, that under certain circumstances Wright would owe Stryker a termination fee equal to 4.0% of the equity value of the transaction (including all amounts payable with respect to Wright’s convertible notes), that the Wright Board would only be permitted to accept an alternative acquisition proposal if such proposal was for a cash amount at least 10% greater than the value of the consideration offered by Stryker, and that Stryker’s obligation to divest assets in order to obtain regulatory clearances would be limited to divestitures of total ankle replacement products and services.
On October 22, 2019, a representative of Wright sent an email to representatives of Stryker indicating certain key changes in the proposed purchase agreement submitted by Stryker were not acceptable to Wright, including the amount of the termination fee, the incremental cash amount required for an alternative proposal to be deemed a superior proposal that Wright could accept, and Stryker’s limited commitment to divest assets in order to obtain regulatory approvals.
On October 24, 2019, Stryker submitted a written proposal to acquire Wright for $30.25 per share in cash. Following the submission, a representative of Stryker called Mr. Palmisano to discuss the proposal. Mr. Palmisano expressed disappointment with the proposed price and proposed a price of $32.00 per share. The representative of Stryker agreed to discuss the matter internally. Later that day, the same representative of Stryker called Mr. Palmisano again and said Stryker would increase its proposed purchase price to $30.50 per share in cash. Mr. Palmisano responded on the call with a proposal of $31.00 per share, which the representative of Stryker also agreed to discuss internally.
On October 25, 2019, Mr. Lobo called Mr. Palmisano and agreed to increase Stryker’s proposal to $30.75 in cash, but stated Stryker was unwilling to increase the proposed price further. Mr. Palmisano agreed to discuss this with the Wright Board and reiterated that closing certainty was a critical issue for Wright.
25