As part two of a yet-to-be-determined number of pieces on the UK's CMA preliminary analysis of the proposed Pacific Biosciences acquisition by Illumina, I'd like to briefly explore the surprising authority of this agency to plumb internal documents at the two companies.
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
Sunday, July 21, 2019
UK CMA's Write-up of PacBio Acquisition by Illumina Makes for XXX Reading; Clearly They Believe XXX and XXX
After writing my two recent pieces on the business side of the long read industry I planned, after a recent extended family vacation, to try to get back to science. Particularly after my chagrin when various correspondents pointed out a fact from each I should have found and didn't: in my ONT piece I failed to discover that ONT has two share classes and the Woodford fund's shares cannot be used to gain control of the company and in the PacBio piece that there is a $100M breakup fee due PacBio if for any reason the deal doesn't go thru. I'm particularly red faced on that one, as a breakup fee would play importantly into PacBio's financial health should the deal go south; $100M would buy perhaps two quarters time.
But then a bunch of people threw my way the UK Competition and Mergers Authority (CMA) report on the merger and I foolishly opened the document. It makes for interesting reading, but that is hampered by the fact it is highly redacted -- like my title. Reserving the right to comment on the contents substance at a future date (or never), I'd just like to give a tour around some of the redactions.
Monday, July 01, 2019
When Illumina announced its proposed acquisition of Pacific Biosciences last fall, an immediate question arose as to whether the deal would pass antitrust review. Illumina must have been optimistic, as they originally expected the deal to close in "mid-2019". That timetable has now been rolled back to late 2019 in the face of the UK agency with jurisdiction over mergers deciding to go for a second round of review and no word yet from the U.S.'s Federal Trade Commission.