Nortons Inc. is representing Aspen Pharmaceuticals (“Aspen”) and GlaxoSmithKline in relation to Aspen acquiring a portfolio of products from GlaxoSmithKline, in so far as they are sold to the “rest of the world”, excluding North America and Europe. The portfolio of products include Solpadeine, Phillips MOM, Zantac, Nytol, Cartia, Valad, Beconase, Dequadin, Borstol, Cofal, Hedex, Kwell, Cafenol, Valoid, Aspirin concept, Cortal, Brooklax, Cofta, Lipeze, Alphosyl, Quellada, Paramed, Specific Pain Remedy, Calsuba, Glucolin, Cytexin, Decavit Plus and Ashton & Parsons (“the Prism products”). Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Aspen will acquire sole control over the Prism products. Nortons Inc. is assisting the merging parties with notifying the proposed transaction in a number of African jurisdictions, including South Africa, Namibia, Swaziland, Kenya and Tanzania. The transaction has also been notified in Brazil.
Nortons Inc. represented both Merck & Co Incorporated (“Merck”), a global, research driven pharmaceutical corporation, and Schering-Plough Corporation (“Schering-Plough”), a global science-based health care company, in the much publicised acquisition (by way of reverse merger) by Schering-Plough of Merck in a cash and stock transaction valued at approximately US$41.1 billion.
Nortons Inc. represented both Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd (“Imperial Group”) and Midas Group (Pty) Ltd (“Midas Group”) in successfully obtaining competition law approval from the South African Competition Tribunal on 21 September 2009 in relation to the large merger between the two companies. The transaction entailed the acquisition by Imperial Group of 56% of the issued share capital of the Midas Group and, according to Imperial Group, amounted to the “biggest deal it had pursued in years.”
In a recent judgment, the WCHC granted an order declaring that the proceedings and actions of the Judicial Service Commission (“JSC”), at a meeting in April 2011 to interview and select candidates for judicial appointment in respect of three vacancies on the bench of the WCHC, was unlawful. Despite being presented with a list of seven candidates, which included four senior counsel, the JSC opted to recommend only one candidate for judicial appointment. As a result, two of the three vacancies on the bench of the WCHC remained vacant. The Cape Bar Council brought an urgent interdict, inter alia, requesting that the WCHC order the JSC to, once properly constituted, consider afresh the applications of the shortlisted candidates who were ultimately unsuccessful. Nortons Inc. supported the application as an amicus curiae (friend of the court). The WCHC held that the meeting, which proceeded despite the absence of key members of the JSC, was not in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution of South Africa and, accordingly, unlawful and constitutionally invalid. It also found that the voting procedure used by the JSC was inconsistent and arbitrary and, consequently, rejected the JSC’s explanation that the remaining vacancies were not filled because the unsuccessful candidates failed to achieve the required number of votes. It concluded that the failure to fill the remaining vacancies was unconstitutional and unlawful and fell to be set aside. As a result, the JSC will have to meet again, this time properly constituted, to consider afresh the candidates’ applications.