This Amendment No. 3 (this “Amendment”) amends and supplements the Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO (together with any amendments and supplements thereto, the “Schedule TO”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on February 12, 2021 by (i) Teiripic Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Purchaser”) and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Horizon Therapeutics USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Parent”) and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Horizon Therapeutics plc, a public limited company organized under the laws of Ireland (“Ultimate Parent”), (ii) Parent and (iii) Ultimate Parent. The Schedule TO relates to the offer by Purchaser to purchase all of the outstanding shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Shares”), of Viela Bio, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), at a purchase price of $53.00 per Share net to the holder thereof, in cash, without interest, subject to any applicable withholding taxes, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Offer to Purchase, dated February 12, 2021 (together with any amendments or supplements thereto, the “Offer to Purchase”) and in the related letter of transmittal (as it may be amended or supplemented from time to time, the “Letter of Transmittal”), copies of which are attached to the Schedule TO as Exhibits (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii), respectively.
Except as otherwise set forth in this Amendment, the information set forth in the Schedule TO remains unchanged and is incorporated herein by reference to the extent relevant to the items in this Amendment. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Offer to Purchase.
Amendments to Schedule TO and Offer to Purchase
Items 1 through 9 and Item 11.
The Offer to Purchase and Items 1 through 9 and Item 11 of the Schedule TO, to the extent such Items incorporate by reference the information contained in the Offer to Purchase, are hereby amended and supplemented by:
| • | | Replacing the paragraph in the subsection titled “Consulting Agreement” in the section captioned Section 11 – “The Transaction Documents” to read as follows: |
“The following summary description of the Consulting Agreement (as defined below) is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Consulting Agreement, which has been filed as Exhibit (d)(5) to the Schedule TO, which may be obtained in the manner set forth in Section 8 — “Certain Information Concerning Ultimate Parent, Purchaser and Parent” above.
Following the execution of the Merger Agreement, Parent offered Dr. Yao a consulting agreement, the effectiveness of which is conditioned on the consummation of the Merger. If the Merger is consummated, the consulting agreement provides for a 12 month term commencing on the Effective Time and continuing through the first anniversary of the Effective Time, subject to earlier termination for convenience or breach. Dr. Yao and Parent entered into the consulting agreement on February 27, 2021 conditioned and effective upon the consummation of the Merger (the “Consulting Agreement”). Pursuant to the Consulting Agreement, Dr. Yao will support Parent’s research and development programs and the integration of Viela into Parent. In exchange, Parent will pay Dr. Yao a monthly consulting fee of $50,000 and will reimburse him for travel expenses he incurs in connection with providing his services. Dr. Yao is expected to terminate employment due to his resignation for “Good Reason” at the Effective Time, and will be entitled to certain payments as described in the Schedule 14D-9 to be filed with the SEC by Viela.”
| • | | Replacing the first paragraph in the subsection titled “Litigation” in the section captioned Section 16 – “Certain Legal Matters; Regulatory Approvals” to read as follows: |
“Between February 18 and March 2, 2021, six purported stockholders of Viela filed separate lawsuits against Viela and its directors in federal district court, captioned Sciannella v. Viela Bio Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01481 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Sciannella Complaint”), Carlisle v. Viela Bio Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01536 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Carlisle Complaint”), Baker v. Viela Bio, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01614 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Baker Complaint”), Kubicek v. Viela Bio, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00280-UNA (D. Del.) (the “Kubicek Complaint”), Ciccotelli v. Viela Bio, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00906 (E.D. Pa.) (the “Ciccotelli Complaint”) and Jones v. Viela Bio, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01787 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Jones Complaint”), respectively. The Baker Complaint and Ciccotelli Complaint also name Ultimate Parent, Parent, and Purchaser as defendants. Each complaint alleges violations of Sections 14(d) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-9 promulgated thereunder. The Carlisle Complaint, the Baker Complaint, the Kubicek Complaint, the Ciccotelli Complaint and the Jones Complaint also allege violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. All lawsuits allege that the Schedule 14D-9 is materially incomplete and misleading and seek to enjoin the tender offer until the purported deficiencies in the Schedule 14D-9 are corrected, or alternatively, monetary damages if the tender offer is consummated. Ultimate Parent, Parent and Purchaser believe the claims asserted in the complaints are without merit.”