The companies Relmada and Laidlaw once had a friendly relationship. Relmada is a publicly traded pharmaceutical company of specialty products. They operate clinically. Laidlaw is an investment bank that also provides financial advice. Starting in 2011, Relmada gave Laidlaw a vote of confidence and hired them to provide them with financial advisory services. The relationship seemed to continue harmoniously for 3 years until something went wrong. It seemed that Laidlaw had begun to take covert action that was against Relmada’s best interest.
Laidlaw and Relmada had become bound together in some ways. Laidlaw had placed a member on Relmada’s board of directors. This member has access to special knowledge about Relmada and this member was also bound by an obligation to have no conflicts of interest in order to hold that position. But in 2015, the NASDAQ revealed that Laidlaw’s planted board member had been duplicitous. Laidlaw was concealing civil racketeering, insurance fraud and malpractice against Relmada.
Things had begun to go bad between the 2 companies a few months before that when it appeared to Relmada’s Chairman of the Board that Laidlaw was charging them unnecessarily for services that were not in its best interest. Substantial fees had been charged and were continuing to be charged to Relmada by Laidlaw. So, Relmada made the decision to try and block laidlaw for such services and fees. It was apparent to Relmada at this point that Laidlaw was a hostile entity and Laidlaw’s subsequent actions proved it. In October of 2015, Laidlaw issued statements that claimed Relmada had not been able to attract institutional capital from investors. Relmada’s assures the public that this claim is untrue. Laidlaw also stated that Relmada had not done due diligence when a prospective investor asked them to do so. For the damage caused to Relmada by these false claims and Laidlaw’s other duplicitous behavior, Relmada seeks $20 million in financial damages.