MedReleaf Australia parent Aurora Cannabis has hit back at hostile suitor, Curaleaf, accusing it of making inaccurate and outdated statements about the firm, triggering a stinging response from its prospective buyer.
Days after Aurora executive chairman and chief executive Miguel Martin told shareholders to take no action following Curaleaf’s takeover bid, he again accused its rival of attempting to undermine the company and trying to drive down the price.
Curaleaf has since issued a response of its own to the Aurora rebuttal, describing it as “hollow”.
The public spat follows a number of public comments by Curaleaf, including claims that Germany is a “challenge” for Aurora and questioning its cultivation methods and “output”.
The remarks should be treated “sceptically”, the Canadian firm said.
“Curaleaf’s timing and public comments appear to be a transparent attempt to pressure Aurora shareholders into making a short-term decision for the benefit of Curaleaf shareholders,” Martin said.
“Curaleaf’s interest underscores the value that Aurora has created. They are trying to acquire our world-class EU-GMP global infrastructure at the lowest possible price, depriving our shareholders of the long-term value our strategy is built to deliver.
“This opportunistic hostile bid comes as Aurora’s multi-year transformation into a high-margin, global medical cannabis leader is yielding positive results. With three consecutive years of positive adjusted EBITDA, accelerating international sales and our recent expansion into the critical UK market, Aurora is reaching a pivotal inflection point.”
Martin said Aurora’s newly formed Special Committee of the Board is continuing to review the Curaleaf proposal but stressed it will “not let inaccurate statements about the company stand uncorrected while the review is underway”.
“The Special Committee and Board are focused on protecting shareholder investment and ensuring full value is realised,” Martin added.
Responding to Curaleaf suggestions that regulatory changes in Germany’s reimbursement market are a major challenge for its takeover target, Aurora said the European country remains a “key driver of Aurora’s 17% year-over-year international net revenue growth in fiscal Q1 27”.
It described Curaleaf’s observations as “incorrect”, saying the reimbursement market accounted for less than 10% of its total German volume prior to the regulatory changes.
It added that the UK and Poland continue to perform well.
Aurora also insisted Curaleaf’s criticism of its cultivation methods and output per square foot are inaccurate and outdated, and do not reflect the strength of its cultivation facilities.
“Aurora’s recent financial performance demonstrates a stronger, more focused business than Curaleaf’s characterisation suggests,” the company added.
Curaleaf has since hit back at Aurora, describing its response as “hollow” and accusing it of using “completely misleading statistics”.
“If its multi-year turnaround strategy were delivering the value management claims, the company’s valuation would reflect it,” Curaleaf said.
“Aurora has repeatedly failed to demonstrate both a credible plan and the ability to execute, resulting in significant lost shareholder value.”
The US firm also rejected Aurora’s characterisation of discussions between the companies, claiming they have “not had a single conversation on the substance of a deal”.
It said Aurora had refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement or allow a site visit, but reiterated it remained willing to meet “anytime” to discuss a deal.
Curaleaf also challenged Aurora’s claim of 17% year-on-year international net revenue growth, saying the business generated around C$5 million (A$5m) less revenue in the June quarter than three months earlier.
It said Aurora’s adjusted EBITDA fell 63% quarter on quarter, and without roughly C$5.1m (A$5.1m) in business transformation cost add-backs, the result would have been negative. Cash flow from operations was negative C$4.4 million (A$4.4m), Curaleaf added.
Responding to Aurora’s claim that its cultivation criticism was inaccurate and outdated, Curaleaf said its analysis was based on a figure of 114 grams per plant taken from Aurora’s audited fiscal 2026 financial statements.
“If there is better information available, shareholders deserve to see it,” Curaleaf said.
It said Aurora’s shares declined around 35% in the year to August 10, while Curaleaf’s increased approximately 56%.
“The market has spoken,” Curaleaf said. “Aurora shareholders have waited long enough. They deserve results and they deserve value now.”
The story was updated on Tuesday August 25 to include comment from Curaleaf Holdings.