Novo Nordisk’s 2020 acquisition of Emisphere Technologies—a small biotech whose drug‑delivery technology had become strategically important in the pharmaceutical market—sparked investor litigation over how the deal treated Emisphere’s public stockholders. The settlement class includes people and entities who held Emisphere common shares at the Dec. 8, 2020 closing and were cashed out in the merger (excluding holders who pursued and perfected appraisal rights in a related action). Under the proposed $32 million fund, eligible investors are to be paid automatically on a per‑share, pro‑rata basis after deductions for court‑approved fees, expenses, administration costs, and taxes, with a fairness hearing scheduled for Oct. 17, 2025 and payments expected after final approval and any appeals. The lawsuit was filed because plaintiffs alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain Emisphere directors and controlling shareholders in connection with the sale, claiming the transaction unfairly diverted merger consideration away from minority holders, was timed and priced on unfair terms, and involved inadequate disclosure of material information to other directors and public investors. These claims matter because, in U.S. merger litigation, fiduciary duties of loyalty and care require decision‑makers to seek fair value for stockholders and to provide accurate, complete disclosures when asking investors to accept a deal; when insiders face conflicts, courts scrutinize whether the process and price were truly fair. Novo Nordisk and the other defendants denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty, cost, and delay of continued litigation. More broadly, the case fits a common pattern in public‑company M&A: minority stockholders challenge controller or insider‑influenced deals alleging conflicted negotiations, side benefits, or missing information, often alongside parallel appraisal proceedings where some investors ask a court to determine “fair value” rather than accept the merger price. The industry context is especially relevant in biotech and pharma, where valuations can swing quickly based on clinical and commercial milestones, making timing and disclosure disputes frequent flashpoints in takeovers. Regulation also shapes these cases: merger disclosures are governed by federal securities rules (including anti‑fraud standards under the Securities Exchange Act), while fiduciary‑duty and appraisal doctrines are generally matters of state corporate law, a framework that continues to drive many settlements that deliver additional cash consideration to dispersed public stockholders without requiring them to file claims.