![]() The SRA contained provisions in which plaintiff agreed that it had received the information it deemed necessary to decide whether to sell the stock defendants had not made any representations outside the SRA the SRA contained the complete agreement between the parties and plaintiff was to release and discharge defendants from known and unknown claims. This offer was made at $1.20 per share.Īfter two months of negotiations, plaintiff entered into a stock repurchase agreement (SRA). The opinion relates that Rajaram told plaintiff that Mu Sigma would no longer experience explosive growth, would have to rely on acquisitions to replace organic growth, that a large customer would be lost and that it was “time for plaintiff to sell,” warning that there was “no upside left” for the company. ![]() A second approach was made about six months later. The first such attempt was to repurchase at 67 cents per share, which implied a valuation for the corporation 61 percent less than a then-recent stock transaction. Plaintiff alleges that after Mu Sigma and its founder, CEO and chair of its board of directors, Dhiraj Rajaram, reaped the benefits of plaintiff’s “reputational capital,” including acquiring prominent tech companies as customers, he made two approaches to plaintiff, seeking to repurchase plaintiff’s shares. ![]() ![]() This plaintiff investment company, acting on behalf of a prominent Chicago family, purchased $1.5 million of preferred stock in the defendant privately held data analytics company, Mu Sigma, Inc. Our panel of leading appellate attorneys reviews the Illinois Supreme Court opinions handed down Monday, November 28. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |