This Amendment No. 1 amends and supplements the Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO (together with any amendments and supplements hereto, this “Schedule TO”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 23, 2018 by Bluegill Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Purchaser”) and wholly-owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company, an Indiana corporation (“Lilly”). The Schedule TO relates to the offer by Purchaser to purchase all of the outstanding shares of common stock, par value, $0.0001 per share (the “Shares”), of ARMO BioSciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“ARMO”), at a purchase price of $50.00 per Share, net to the seller in cash, without interest and less any applicable tax withholding, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Offer to Purchase (the “Offer to Purchase”) and in the related Letter of Transmittal, copies of which are attached to the Schedule TO as Exhibits (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B), respectively.
Items 1 through 9 and Item 11.
The disclosure in the Offer to Purchase and Items 1 through 9 and Item 11 of the Schedule TO is hereby amended and supplemented by adding the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph inSection 16 – “Certain Legal Matters; Regulatory Approvals”of the Offer to Purchase under the subheading “Antitrust Compliance”and under the further subheading “United States”:
“On May 29, 2018, the FTC granted early termination of the waiting period applicable to the Offer under the HSR Act, effective the same day.”
The disclosure in the Offer to Purchase and Item 11 of the Schedule TO is hereby amended and supplemented by adding the followingsub-heading and paragraph at the end ofSection 16 – “Certain Legal Matters; Regulatory Approvals”of the Offer to Purchase:
“Certain Litigation
On May 24, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit (captionedCopp v. ARMO BioSciences, Inc. et al., CaseNo. 18-cv-03109) (the “Copp Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against ARMO and individual members of the ARMO Board, alleging violations of Sections 14(d)(4) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act,Rule 14d-9 promulgated under Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with theSchedule 14D-9. The complaint filed in the Copp Action alleges that the Schedule14D-9 omits material information, rendering the information disclosed false and misleading. The Copp Action seeks, among other things, orders (i) enjoining the defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Offer and the Merger (or, in the alternative, awarding damages in the event the Merger is completed), (ii) directing the individual members of the Board to file an amendedSchedule 14D-9, and (iii) awarding plaintiff’s costs and attorneys’ and expert fees. On May 25, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction, for which the court set a hearing for June 14, 2018.
On May 29, 2018, a lawsuit (captionedNaugle v. ARMO BioSciences, Inc. et al., CaseNo. 18-cv-03176) (the “Naugle Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against ARMO and individual members of the ARMO Board, alleging violations of Sections 14(d)(4) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act,Rule 14d-9 promulgated under Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with theSchedule 14D-9. The complaint filed in the Naugle Action alleges that the Schedule14D-9 omits or misrepresents material information, rendering the information disclosed false and misleading. The Naugle Action seeks, among other things, orders (i) enjoining the defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Offer and the Merger, (ii) rescinding the Offer and the Merger if they are consummated or, alternatively, awarding unspecified rescissory damages, and (iii) awarding plaintiff’s costs and attorneys’ and expert fees.
Also on May 29, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit (captionedFranchi v. ARMO BioSciences, Inc. et al., CaseNo. 18-cv-00805) (the “Franchi Action” and collectively with the Copp Action and the Naugle Action, the “Actions”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against ARMO,
-2-