Stratasys has announced that its Board of Directors has unanimously rejected the 1.1 billion USD takeover bid from Nano Dimension.
The 18 USD per share proposal was referred to as ‘unsolicited’ in a press release distributed by the company.
Stratasys said that in line with fiduciary duties, and in consultation with its independent financial and legal advisors, its Board of Directors carefully reviewed and evaluated the proposal.
In the announcement Stratasys said: “Following the review, the Stratasys Board concluded that Nano’s proposal substantially undervalues the Company in light of its standalone prospects and is not in the best interests of Stratasys and its shareholders.’
Stratasys says its Board and management team are confident that the company’s standalone plan will create ‘significantly greater’ value for its shareholders than the proposal from Nano Dimension.
A week after Nano Dimension acquired a 12.12% stake in Stratasys in July 2022, Stratasys deployed a shareholder rights plan, which is typically used as a defensive strategy against hostile takeovers. Between these two chapters to the story, Nano Dimension CEO Yoav Stern told TCT that his company was ‘not necessarily’ interested in a takeover of Stratasys.
The news of the rejected proposal comes only days after further developments in the ongoing power struggle at Nano Dimension itself.
After a meeting on March 20, the largest shareholder in the company Murchinson Ltd. announced that approximately 92% of shareholders supported its proposals, which included the removal of Yoav Stern as Chairman and CEO as well as three other sitting directors, and the appointment of Murchinson nominees Kenneth H. Traub and Dr. Joshua Rosenweig.
A day later on March 21, Nano Dimension released its own statement saying that its shareholders did not support Murchinson’s proposals in the meeting which it referred to as ‘invalid’. The statement included a message from the company to its shareholders: “Nano Dimension shareholders should disregard any voting results released by Murchinson. The meeting – and therefore the vote – is invalid.”
