Empyrean Protocol

Empyrean Intelligence Console

← Back to briefs

Veranova Bidco LP v Johnson Matthey PLC & Ors [2025] EWHC 707 (Comm) (25 March 2025)

Source: Open mirrored case · Original bailii.org

Sanctions — Geo ✓

Executive Summary

  • Veranova Bidco LP ("Claimant") alleges Johnson Matthey entities ("Defendants") committed fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty in the sale of a Health Business.
  • Central issue: Defendants failed to disclose a triggered price review by key customer Alvogen on Buprenorphine HCl (BHCL), leading to a significant price reduction and devaluation.
  • Defendants sought summary judgment to strike out deceit claims based on draft Disclosure Letter representations; court refused, allowing claims to proceed.
  • The case hinges on whether Defendants knowingly misled Claimant about ongoing price negotiations and competing offers prior to SPA signing.

Sanctions Highlights

  • No sanctions implications identified in the case.

Emerging Risks

  • Risk of increased litigation over non-disclosure of material pricing risks in M&A transactions.
  • Potential reputational damage for sellers failing to disclose adverse contract developments with major customers.
  • Heightened scrutiny on the adequacy and timing of disclosures in share purchase agreements and related documents.
  • Possible expansion of fraud and deceit claims linked to draft disclosure communications.

Geopolitical Impact

  • Case involves UK jurisdiction with parties headquartered or operating in UK and US markets.
  • Highlights cross-border commercial risks in pharmaceutical supply chains between UK-based sellers and global customers.
  • Reflects UK courts’ willingness to rigorously enforce disclosure obligations in international commercial contracts.
  • May influence transatlantic M&A due diligence standards, particularly in regulated sectors like pharmaceuticals.

Economic Intelligence

  • The Health Business’s value materially impacted by Alvogen’s price review triggered by a lower third-party offer.
  • Price adjustment mechanism required Johnson Matthey to match a significantly lower price, reducing revenue projections.
  • Dispute underscores vulnerability of pharma ingredient suppliers to competitive pricing pressures and contract renegotiations.
  • Financial impact was reflected in quarterly accounts but allegedly not fully disclosed pre-transaction.

Strategic Recommendations

  • Buyers should demand explicit, contemporaneous disclosures of all material contract risks, including draft disclosure documents.
  • Sellers must ensure full transparency on pricing negotiations and competitive threats to avoid fraud claims.
  • Legal teams should scrutinize the scope and timing of disclosure letters and SPA warranties to mitigate post-deal liability.
  • Consider enhanced due diligence on key customer contracts with price adjustment clauses in pharma and similar sectors.
  • Monitor UK Commercial Court rulings for evolving standards on fraudulent misrepresentation in M&A contexts.

---

**Source Notes:**

Sanctions Intelligence Digest

[https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/707.html](https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/707.html)

Brief metadata