As required by law, companies will submit the transaction agreement to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice for review. Secondly, it was found that the Bundesgerichtshof not only stated that the parties had entered into a transaction and established the terms of the transaction, but had also set the terms and ordered Apotex to comply with it. This was considered too broad, as a breach of the settlement agreement could now lead to a procedure of contempt. According to the Court of Appeal, there should have been only one explanation that a transaction agreement had been reached by referring to the documents in the minutes. On April 21 and 22, 2014, Valeant`s defense attorneys announced their offer to acquire and the defendants announced their share. Allergan`s share price rose about 15% immediately after the announcement. Pershing Defendants` earnings on their Class Period transactions increased to more than $2 billion after a third party, Actavis plc, agreed to acquire Allergan for cash and shares valued at approximately US$219 per Allergan share. Of that amount, the Pershing Defendants paid about $400 million to the Valeant Defendants under a February 2014 agreement that the Pershing Defendants would share their profits with the Valeant Defendants if a competing bid for Allergan was successful and would retain the rest. The full definition of the class, including excluded individuals and entities, is available in the account release. Persons who have traded non-Allergan common shares, including derivatives whose value depends or is related to the value of Allergan Derivative Securities, are not members of the class as a result of these transactions.
A separate agreement was reached on behalf of Allergan Derivative Securities distributors. For more information on this site, please visit: www.AllerganDerivativesSettlement.com. In accordance with the terms of the transaction, Ironwood and Allergan Teva license their 145 McGs and 290 McGs generic version of LINZESS in the United States as of March 31, 2029 (subject to FDA approval), unless there are limited circumstances for such comparison agreements. As a result of the transaction, the ongoing hatch-waxman lawsuit between the companies and Teva over LINZESS patents pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware was dismissed. Further details of the comparison were not disclosed. This press release contains forward-looking statements. Investors are cautioned not to improperly rely on such forward-looking statements, including statements relating to the settlement of patent disputes with Teva and all related transaction terms, including the general entry date and the potential for prior general entry in certain limited circumstances; LinZESS` intellectual property solidity; maintaining the majority of LINZESS patent coverage for pharmaceutical forms 145 mcg and 290 mcg; THE LINZESS market and our growth of the LINZESS franchise, as well as its timing and duration; The foreseeable duration of patent exclusivity, shelf life and the lifespan of linaclotid`s patent portfolio, including potential exclusivity or paediatric or other extensions; our search for additional patent applications for formulations related to dose resistance of LINZESS 72 mcg; and the presentation of the transaction contract in the United States