UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE TO
TENDER OFFER STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 14(d)(1) OR 13(e)(1)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Amendment No. 1
SIZMEK INC.
(Name of Subject Company (Issuer))
SOLOMON MERGER SUBSIDIARY, INC.
SOLOMON HOLDING, LLC
(Name of Filing Persons (Offerors))
VECTOR SOLOMON HOLDINGS (CAYMAN), LTD.
VECTOR CAPITAL IV, L.P.
VECTOR CAPITAL IV INTERNATIONAL, L.P.
VECTOR ENTREPRENEUR FUND III, L.P.
(Name of Filing Persons (Others))
COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.001 PER SHARE
(Title of Class of Securities)
83013P105
(CUSIP Number of Class of Securities)
Alex Beregovsky
Solomon Holding, LLC
c/o Vector Capital Management, L.P.
One Market Street
Steuart Tower, 23rd Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 293-5000
(Name, address, and telephone numbers of person authorized to receive notices and communications on behalf of filing persons)
Copies to:
Jeffrey B. Golden
Joshua M. Zachariah
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
555 California Street
Suite 2700
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 439-1400
CALCULATION OF FILING FEE
Transaction Valuation(1) | Amount of Filing Fee(2) | |
$121,610,311 | $12,247 | |
(1) | Calculated solely for purposes of determining the filing fee. The calculation assumes the purchase of 29,140,035 shares of voting common stock, par value $0.001 per share, at an offer price of $3.90 per share. The transaction value also includes 2,042,096 shares issuable upon settlement of time or performance based restricted stock units multiplied by the offer price of $3.90 per share. The calculation assumes that the 560,056 outstanding stock options will be cancelled without payment to the holders because the exercise price with respect to such stock options exceeds the offer price. The calculation of the filing fee is based on information provided by Sizmek Inc. as of August 3, 2016. |
(2) | The amount of the filing fee was calculated in accordance with Rule 0-11 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Fee Rate Advisory #1 for fiscal year 2016, issued August 27, 2015, by multiplying the transaction value by 0.0001007. |
x | Check the box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing with which the offsetting fee was previously paid. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the form or schedule and the date of its filing. |
Amount Previously Paid: $12,247 | Filing Party: Solomon Merger Subsidiary, Inc. | |
Form of Registration No.: Schedule TO | Date Filed: August 29, 2016 |
¨ | Check the box if the filing relates solely to preliminary communications made before the commencement of a tender offer. |
Check the appropriate boxes below to designate any transactions to which the statement relates:
x | Third-party tender offer subject to Rule 14d-1. |
¨ | Issuer tender offer subject to Rule 13e-4. |
¨ | Going-private transaction subject to Rule 13e-3. |
¨ | Amendment to Schedule 13D under Rule 13d-2. |
Check the following box if the filing is a final amendment reporting the results of the tender offer. ¨
If applicable, check the appropriate box(es) below to designate the appropriate rule provision(s) relied upon:
¨ | Rule 13e-4(i) (Cross-Border Issuer Tender Offer) |
¨ | Rule 14d-1(d) (Cross-Border Third-Party Tender Offer) |
This Amendment No. 1 (this Amendment) to the Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO (together with this Amendment and any other amendments and supplements thereto, the Schedule TO) is being filed by (i) Solomon Holding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Parent), (ii) Solomon Merger Subsidiary, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a whollyowned subsidiary of Parent (Purchaser), (iii) Vector Solomon Holdings (Cayman), Ltd., a Cayman Islands limited liability exempted company, an affiliate of each of Parent and Purchaser (Holdings), (iv) Vector Capital IV, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, an affiliate of each of Parent and Purchaser (VC IV), (v) Vector Capital IV International, L.P., a Cayman Islands limited partnership, an affiliate of each of Parent and Purchaser (Vector International) and (vi) Vector Entrepreneur Fund III, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, an affiliate of each of Parent and Purchaser (VEF III). This Schedule TO relates to the tender offer for all of the outstanding shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the Shares), of Sizmek Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), at a price of $3.90 per Share, net to the seller in cash without interest and less any applicable withholding taxes, if any, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the offer to purchase dated August 29, 2016 (the Offer to Purchase), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit (a)(1)(A), and in the related letter of transmittal (the Letter of Transmittal), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit (a)(1)(B), which, together with any amendments or supplements, collectively constitute the Offer.
Except as otherwise indicated in this Amendment, the information set forth in the Schedule TO remains unchanged. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Schedule TO.
All the information set forth in the Offer to Purchase is incorporated by reference herein in response to Items 1 through 9 and Item 11 in this Schedule TO, and is supplemented by the information specifically provided in this Schedule TO.
2
Item 11. Additional Information.
The disclosure set forth in the Offer to Purchase under Section 16 Certain Legal Matters; Regulatory Approvals is hereby amended and supplemented by replacing the third paragraph of the subsection titled Stockholder Litigation with the following paragraphs:
On September 2, 2016, a third putative stockholder class action complaint captioned Steven Penza v. John R. Harris, et al., (Sizmek, Inc.), Case No. 12718-VCMR was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain members of its Board. The complaint generally alleges that certain of the Companys directors breached their duties to the Companys stockholders by failing to adequately disclose all material information in connection with soliciting stockholders to tender their shares with the Offer. The complaint seeks the costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys and experts fees and costs, and other such relief as is equitable and just.
Each of the Company, Parent and Purchaser believes that the plaintiffs allegations lack merit and will vigorously contest them. The foregoing descriptions are qualified in their entirety by reference to the complaints which are filed as Exhibit (a)(5)(A), Exhibit (a)(5)(B) and Exhibit (a)(5)(C).
The disclosure set forth in the Offer to Purchase under Section 16 Certain Legal Matters; Regulatory Approvals is hereby amended and supplemented by inserting the following paragraph as the fourth paragraph of the subsection titled United States Antitrust Compliance:
At 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on September 1, 2016, the required waiting period applicable to the Offer and the Merger under the HSR Act expired. Accordingly, the condition to the Offer and the Merger that any waiting period under the HSR Act shall have expired or been terminated has been satisfied.
The disclosure set forth in the Offer to Purchase under Section 16 Certain Legal Matters; Regulatory Approvals is hereby amended and supplemented by inserting the following paragraph after the fourth paragraph of the subsection titled United States Antitrust Compliance:
Antitrust Compliance in Foreign Jurisdictions. We have not made any filings, and do not believe any filings are required, under laws analogous to the HSR Act in any other jurisdiction.
Item 12. Exhibits.
Item 12 of the Schedule TO is hereby amended and supplemented by adding the following exhibits:
Exhibit |
Description | |
(a)(5)(C) | Class Action Complaint dated September 2, 2016 (Steven Penza v. John R. Harris, et al., (Sizmek, Inc.), Case No. 12718-VCMR). |
3
SIGNATURE
After due inquiry and to the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that the information set forth in this statement is true, complete and correct.
SOLOMON MERGER SUBSIDIARY, INC. | ||
By | /s/ Alex Beregovsky | |
Name: | Alex Beregovsky | |
Title: | President | |
Date: | September 6, 2016 | |
SOLOMON HOLDING, LLC | ||
By | /s/ Alex Beregovsky | |
Name: | Alex Beregovsky | |
Title: | President | |
Date: | September 6, 2016 | |
VECTOR SOLOMON HOLDINGS (CAYMAN), LTD. | ||
By | /s/ David Baylor | |
Name: | David Baylor | |
Title: | Chief Operating Officer | |
Date: | September 6, 2016 | |
VECTOR CAPITAL IV, L.P. | ||
By | Vector Capital Partners IV, L.P. | |
Its: | General Partner | |
By | Vector Capital, Ltd. | |
Its: | General Partner | |
By | /s/ David Baylor | |
Name: | David Baylor | |
Title: | Director | |
Date: | September 6, 2016 | |
By | Vector Capital, L.L.C. | |
Its: | General Partner | |
By | /s/ David Baylor | |
Name: | David Baylor | |
Title: | Chief Operating Officer | |
Date: | September 6, 2016 |
4
VECTOR CAPITAL IV INTERNATIONAL, L.P. | ||
By | Vector Capital Partners IV, L.P. | |
Its: | General Partner | |
By | Vector Capital, Ltd. | |
Its: | General Partner | |
By | /s/ David Baylor | |
Name: | David Baylor | |
Title: | Director | |
Date: | September 6, 2016 | |
By | Vector Capital, L.L.C. | |
Its: | General Partner | |
By | /s/ David Baylor | |
Name: | David Baylor | |
Title: | Chief Operating Officer | |
Date: | September 6, 2016 | |
VECTOR ENTREPRENEUR FUND III, L.P. | ||
By | Vector Capital Partners III, L.P. | |
Its: | General Partner | |
By | Vector Capital, Ltd. | |
Its: | General Partner | |
By | /s/ David Baylor | |
Name: | David Baylor | |
Title: | Director | |
Date: | September 6, 2016 | |
By | Vector Capital, L.L.C. | |
Its: | General Partner | |
By | /s/ David Baylor | |
Name: | David Baylor | |
Title: | Chief Operating Officer | |
Date: | September 6, 2016 |
5
EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibit |
Description | |
(a)(1)(A) | Offer to Purchase, dated August 29, 2016.* | |
(a)(1)(B) | Letter of Transmittal.* | |
(a)(1)(C) | Notice of Guaranteed Delivery.* | |
(a)(1)(D) | Letter from the Information Agent to Brokers, Dealers, Commercial Banks, Trust Companies and Other Nominees.* | |
(a)(1)(E) | Letter to Clients for Use by Brokers, Dealers, Commercial Banks, Trust Companies and Other Nominees.* | |
(a)(1)(F) | Press Release issued by the Company on August 3, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.5 to Current Report on Form 8-K of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016).* | |
(a)(1)(G) | Summary Advertisement as published in the New York Times on August 29, 2016.* | |
(a)(1)(H) | Joint Press Release issued by the Company, Holdings, VC IV, Vector International and VEF III on August 29, 2016.* | |
(a)(5)(A) | Class Action Complaint dated August 11, 2016 (MSS 12-09 Trust v. Sizmek Inc., et al).* | |
(a)(5)(B) | Class Action Complaint dated August 24, 2016 (William Deltac v. Sizmek Inc., et al).* | |
(a)(5)(C) | Class Action Complaint dated September 2, 2016 (Steven Penza v. John R. Harris, et al., (Sizmek, Inc.), Case No. 12718-VCMR). | |
(b) | None. | |
(d)(1) | Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 3, 2016, by and among the Company, Purchaser and Parent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Amendment No. 1 to Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016).* | |
(d)(2) | Confidentiality Agreement, dated March 23, 2016, between the Company and Vector Capital Management, L.P.* | |
(d)(3) | Limited Guarantee, dated as of August 3, 2016, by VC IV in favor of the Company (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to Current Report on Form 8-K of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016).* | |
(d)(4) | Equity Commitment Letter, dated as of August 3, 2016, from VC IV to Parent.* | |
(d)(5) | Tender and Voting Agreement, dated as of August 3, 2016, by and among the Company, Parent, Purchaser and Moon Doggie Family Partnership L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.4 to Current Report on Form 8-K of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016).* | |
(d)(6) | Tender and Voting Agreement, dated as of August 3, 2016, by and among Parent, Purchaser and Scott K. Ginsburg (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 to Current Report on Form 8-K of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016).* | |
(d)(7) | Tender and Voting Agreement, dated as of August 3, 2016, by and among Parent, Purchaser and Neil H. Nguyen (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 to Current Report on Form 8-K of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016).* | |
(g) | None. | |
(h) | None. |
* | Previously filed. |
6
Exhibit (a)(5)(C)
EFiled: Sep 02 2016 03:34PM EDT Transaction ID 59507837 Case No. 12718- |
![]() | |||
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STEVEN PENZA, on behalf of | ||
himself and all other similarly situated | ||
stockholders of SIZMEK, INC. | ||
Plaintiff, |
||
C.A. No. | ||
v. |
||
JOHN R. HARRIS, NEIL H. | ||
NGUYEN, SCOTT K. GINSBURG, | ||
ADAM KLEIN, CECIL H. MOORE | ||
JR. and STEPHEN E. RECHT, | ||
Defendants.
|
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Steven Penza (Plaintiff), on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public stockholders of Sizmek, Inc. (Sizmek or the Company), brings the following Verified Class Action Complaint (the Complaint) against certain members of the board of directors of Sizmek (the Director Defendants) for breaching their fiduciary duties. The allegations of the Complaint are based on the knowledge of Plaintiff as to himself, and on information and belief, including the investigation of counsel and review of publicly available information as to all other matters.
INTRODUCTION
1. This case arises from breaches of fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants in connection with soliciting stockholder approval of a buyout of Sizmek by Solomon Holding, LLC and Solomon Merger Subsidiary, Inc., affiliates of Vector Capital IV, L.P., Vector Capital International, L.P. and Vector Entrepreneur Fund III, L.P. (collectively referred to as Vector Capital) for $3.90 per share (the Proposed Transaction).
2. On August 3, 2016, Vector Capital and Sizmek issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) whereby Vector Capital will acquire Sizmek through an all-cash tender offer valued at approximately $122 million (the Tender Offer). The Tender Offer is governed by Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) §251(h), permitting the offer to close as early as twenty business days after it has been commenced. The Tender Offer is expected to end on September 26, 2016 and the transaction is expected to close by the end of 2016.
3. In connection with the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, on August 29, 2016, Sizmek filed a Tender Offer Statement on Form Schedule TO (Schedule TO) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). That same day, the Company publicly filed and disseminated to stockholders a Tender
-2-
Offer Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (the Recommendation Statement, and together with the Schedule TO, the Tender Offer Documents). The Recommendation Statement misrepresents and fails to disclose plainly material information necessary for the Companys public stockholders to make an informed decision regarding whether to tender their shares in the Tender Offer.
4. Most notably, one of Sizmeks current directors, Xavier A. Gutierrez (Gutierrez), and Sizmeks largest stockholder, Meruelo Investment Partners LLC (Meruelo), oppose the Proposed Transaction and are not recommending the Proposed Transaction to stockholders. However, the Recommendation Statement fails to disclose (a) why Gutierrez believed $3.90 per share undervalued the Companys prospects over the long term, (b) what Gutierrez communicated to his fellow directors in this regard, (c) whether Gutierrez communicated a particular price at which he would support a sale of the Company, and (d) whether Gutierrez and/or Meruelo have indicated that they intend to seek appraisal for their shares. In contrast to this failure to adequately explain Gutierrezs rationale for his opposition, the Recommendation Statement devotes over four pages to addressing why the remainder of Sizmeks board of directors recommend and support the Proposed Transaction.
-3-
5. In addition to failing to adequately disclose Gutierrezs dissent, the Recommendation Statement also fails to disclose:
a. | The views and opinions of Gutierrez and the Director Defendants concerning the $4.29 per share proposal submitted to Neil H. Nguyen (Nguyen) by the Chinese Ad Tech firm on August 9, 2016; |
b. | Gutierrezs rationale for believing the Companys second quarter earnings would likely lead to a significant increase or change in the Companys stock price and how significant an increase Gutierrez believed the release of the Companys second quarter earnings would cause; |
c. | The purpose, substance, and/or cause of the amendment to J.P. Morgans engagement letter; and |
d. | Why Nguyens position as the Companys CEO caused him to abstain from the vote on the Proposed Transaction. |
6. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to remedy the Director Defendants breaches of fiduciary duty.1
THE PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Steven Penza is a stockholder of Sizmek and has owned Sizmek common stock at all material times alleged in this Complaint.
1 | Pursuant to Article VIII of Sizmeks Amended and Restated Certification of Incorporation, dated February 4, 2014, Unless the Corporation consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware shall . . . be the sole and exclusive forum for . . . (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owned by, or other wrongdoing by, any director, officer or employee of the Corporation to the Corporation or the Corporations stockholders . . . . |
-4-
8. Relevant non-party Sizmek is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal office located at 500 W. 5th Street, Suite 900, Austin, Texas 78701. Sizmek is an open ad management company traded on the NASDAQ stock market under the ticker symbol SZMK.
9. Relevant non-party Gutierrez has been a Sizmek director since February 2014. Gutierrez is Chief Investment Officer of the Meruelo Group as well as President and CIO of Meruelo Investment Partners LLC, the Companys largest stockholder, holding approximately 13.8% of Sizmeks outstanding stock as of August 4, 2016.
10. Defendant Nguyen is Sizmeks President and CEO, and serves as a director on the Sizmek Board. He has been President and CEO since February 2014, and a director of the Company since November 2013.
11. Defendant Scott K. Ginsburg (Ginsburg) has been a director of the Company since 2013.
12. Defendant John R. Harris (Harris) has been a director of the Company since November 2013.
13. Defendant Adam Klein (Klein) has been a director of the Company since February 2014.
14. Defendant Cecil H. Moore Jr. (Moore) has been a director of the Company since February 2014.
-5-
15. Defendant Stephen E. Recht (Recht) has been a director of the Company since February 2014.
16. The defendants listed in paragraphs 9 through 15 above are collectively referred to herein as the Board or the Sizmek Board.
17. The defendants listed in paragraphs 10 through 15 above are collectively referred to herein as the Defendants or the Director Defendants.
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
I. | Sizmek Engages In Discussions With Potential Bidders |
18. Formed in 2013, Sizmek is an open ad management company that provides advertisers with start-to-finish advertising services, ad delivery, marketing campaign management, and accurate analytics across various channels such as mobile, rich media, video, social and search.
19. On March 13, 2015, Sizmek received a preliminary proposal from Goldman Sachs & Co. (Goldman Sachs), which represented a Japanese firm, to acquire all the outstanding stock of Sizmek for between $10.00 to $11.00 per share. The proposal was subject to the Company agreeing to exclusively negotiate with the Japanese firm.
20. Upon receiving the Japanese firms proposal, the Board invited J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPM) to advise and solicit additional proposals from large U.S. and foreign-based firms that would have an interest in acquiring Sizmek.
-6-
21. After considering the Japanese firms request for exclusivity, the Board declined the exclusivity request but continued negotiations with the Japanese firm, which included exchanging draft merger agreements. Despite negotiations, the Japanese firm notified the Board in May 2015 that it had decided not to continue discussions and communicated its decision that it was no longer interested in acquiring Sizmek.
22. On November 23, 2015, Sizmeks Board held a special telephonic meeting and decided to form a strategic options committee (the Strategy Committee) consisting of directors Harris (as Chair), Ginsburg and Gutierrez. The Strategy Committee was tasked with exploring strategic options for Sizmek, including, among other things, a possible sale or other business combination intended to achieve value for stockholders.
23. A week later, Sizmeks CEO, Nguyen, contacted a financial sponsor, Sponsor B, and discussed the possibility of a potential combination. Sponsor B held an investment in a global advertising tech company and in 2013 and 2014 had engaged in discussions with Nguyen about an acquisition and/or merger.
24. On February 23, 2016, Sponsor B submitted a written preliminary proposal to acquire all of Sizmeks outstanding stock within a price range of $5.00 to $5.40 per share.
-7-
25. Two weeks later, the Sizmek Board met with JPM and its legal advisor Latham & Watkins LLP (Latham & Watkins) and discussed Sponsor Bs proposal as well as another proposal the Company received from an Israeli firm. During the meeting, the Board, along with JPM, agreed to contact parties that had previously expressed interest in acquiring Sizmek, such as the Japanese firm.
26. On March 11, 2016, JPM contacted Vector Capital. According to JPM and Nguyen, Vector Capital had a portfolio company, Triton Digital LLC (Triton Digital), which served the advertising technology industry and had reason to believe that Triton Digital was interested in expanding its investment in the Ad Tech industry. Beginning on March 11, 2016, Sizmek and Vector Capital negotiated a confidentiality agreement and on March 23, 2016 executed a mutually acceptable confidentiality agreement. On the same day, Sizmek signed a confidentiality agreement with Sponsor B that contained a 12-month standstill provision.
27. On April 18, 2016, Sponsor B submitted a new proposal to acquire Sizmek for $4.50 to $5.00 per share subject to receiving certain technology and software due diligence as well as sales data from certain key customers of Sizmek.
-8-
28. In light of Sponsor Bs new proposal, JPM informed Vector Capital that it would need to find more value and increase its bid in the second round of bidding.
29. On May 15, 2016, Vector Capital submitted a bid letter to acquire all of Sizmeks outstanding stock for $4.50 per share subject to confirmatory due diligence.
30. The Board held a meeting on May 17, 2016 and instructed JPM to determine whether Vector Capital would increase its bid up to $5.00 per share.
31. On May 31, 2016, Vector Capital increased its proposal to $4.75 per share, conditioned on Sizmek agreeing to a four-week exclusivity period. Sizmek agreed to the exclusivity period starting May 31, 2016.
32. While conducting its accounting due diligence, Vector Capital indicated to Sizmek that due to certain items that it had identified, it was going to lower its previous proposal by more than $1.02 per share.
33. On July 12, 2016, Vector Capital submitted a proposal to acquire all of Sizmeks outstanding common stock for approximately $3.40 per share.
34. Over the next few weeks, the Board had discussions with JPM and Vector Capital resulting in Vector Capital submitting a proposal to acquire Sizmek for $3.90 per share.
-9-
35. On July 26, 2016, the Board held a telephonic meeting to discuss Vector Capitals latest $3.90 per share proposal. At the meeting, Gutierrez (i) communicated his objection to the $3.90 per share proposal because it undervalued the Companys prospects over the long term, and (ii) told the Director Defendants he would vote against any deal at that price. Nothing else has been disclosed to stockholders regarding what information formed the basis of Gutierrezs objection.
II. | Gutierrez Objects To Signing The Merger Agreement And Votes Against The Proposed Transaction |
36. On August 1, 2016, Sizmeks Board held a meeting to discuss, among other things, updates on the negotiations with Vector Capital as well as the timing of the signing of the Merger Agreement. Specifically, the Board discussed whether the Company should release its second quarter earnings a day or two before signing the Merger Agreement and announcing a merger with Vector Capital.
37. During the meeting, Gutierrez noted he disagreed with this view, and that the Company should announce second quarter earnings before proceeding to sign an agreement with Vector. Despite Gutierrezs objection, the Director Defendants decided they should proceed with signing the Merger Agreement with Vector. Unfortunately, Sizmek stockholders remain uninformed about Gutierrezs rationale for objecting to the signing of the Merger Agreement before the Company released second quarter earnings.
-10-
38. The following day, Vector Capital and Sizmek finalized the terms of the Merger Agreement. JPM also delivered its fairness opinion. Following discussions, the Director Defendants approved the Proposed Transaction. Gutierrez, however, dissented and voted against entering into the Merger Agreement. Although Nguyen had actively participated in the sales process, he abstained from voting on the Proposed Transaction.
III. | Sizmek And Vector Capital Agree To The Proposed Transaction |
39. On the evening of August 3, 2016, Sizmek and Vector Capital publicly announced that they had signed a definitive agreement to enter into the Proposed Transaction and that Vector Capital would commence the Tender Offer to acquire all of Sizmeks outstanding shares for $3.90 per share subject to the Company conducting a 30-day Go-Shop period.
40. Six days after announcing the Proposed Transaction, Nguyen received an unsolicited proposal from a Chinese advertising firm to acquire all of the outstanding stock of Sizmek for $4.29 per share, subject to due diligence. In response to the proposal, Nguyen conveyed to the Chinese firm that the Strategy Committee needed additional information relating to financing and equity commitments before moving forward.
-11-
41. While the Chinese firm never responded to Nguyens request for additional information, stockholders are left in the dark as to whether Gutierrez and/or the Director Defendants expressed their opinions or views on the Chinese firms proposal.
IV. | The Recommendation Statement Omits Plainly Material Information |
42. In connection with soliciting the necessary stockholder support for the Proposed Transaction, on August 29, 2016, the Company published a Recommendation Statement. The Recommendation Statement fails to disclose plainly material information necessary to permit Sizmek stockholders to cast a fully-informed vote on the Proposed Transaction.
43. For example, the Recommendation Statement states that at the July 26, 2016 Board meeting, Mr. Gutierrez expressed the view that $3.90 per share undervalued the Companys prospects over the long term, and advised that he would vote against any deal at that price. (Recommendation Statement at 19).
44. The Recommendation Statement, however, fails to disclose: (a) why Gutierrez believed $3.90 per share undervalued the Companys prospects over the long term, (b) what Gutierrez communicated to his fellow Board members in this regard, (c) whether Gutierrez communicated a particular price at which he would support a sale of the Company, and (d) whether Gutierrez and/or Meruelo have indicated that they intend to seek appraisal for their shares. This information is
-12-
material to Sizmeks public stockholders decision on whether to support the Proposed Transaction. If the Companys largest stockholder and its Board representative refuse to support the Proposed Transaction recommended by a majority of the Sizmek Board, the information regarding this dissention is plainly material to public stockholders decision of which conflicting view to embrace. Further, Gutierrezs and Meruelos communications to the Board about the inadequacy of the offer price must also be disclosed, as they bear directly on the effectiveness of the Boards deliberation and decision to recommend the all-cash Proposed Transaction.
45. Additionally, the Recommendation Statement states that [o]n August 9, 2016, Mr. Nguyen received an unsolicited non-binding preliminary [proposal] from a Chinese Ad Tech firm to acquire all of the outstanding stock of Sizmek at $4.29 per share, subject to due diligence. (Recommendation Statement at 22). Despite the unsolicited offer representing a 10% premium to the Proposed Transaction, the Recommendation Statement is basically silent as to its reception by the individual members of the Board. In particular, the Recommendation Statement fails to disclose whether Gutierrez expressed any views regarding this $4.29 offer to his fellow Board members or whether Gutierrez and/or Meruelo expressed a willingness to support a sale of Sizmek at a price of $4.29 per share. This information is critical to stockholders decision to either tender their shares or hold out in the hope that Sizmek will remain a public company.
-13-
46. The Recommendation Statement also states that:
The second quarter results remained consistent with that guidance and no further guidance would be provided, meaning that the release of the second quarter earnings would not likely lead to a significant increase or change in the Companys stock price. Mr. Gutierrez noted that he disagreed with this view, and that the Company should announce second quarter earnings before proceeding to sign an agreement with Vector. Given the pace of negotiations with Vector, and that there remained some risk Vector could decide to withdraw or change its offer price again, the Board determined, with Mr. Gutierrez dissenting, to proceed with targeting a signing of the merger agreement and announcement of the transaction by no later than the morning of August 3, 2016. (Recommendation Statement at 21).
47. However the Recommendation Statement fails to provide: (a) Gutierrezs rationale for believing the Companys second quarter earnings would likely lead to a significant increase or change in the Companys stock price and (b) how significant an increase Gutierrez believed the release of the Companys second quarter earnings would cause.
48. Further, the Recommendation Statement states that pursuant to an engagement letter dated March 30, 2015 and amended June 20, 2016, the Company retained J.P. Morgan as its financial advisor in connection with the Proposed Merger. (Recommendation Statement at 26). Yet the Recommendation Statement fails to reveal the purpose, substance, and/or cause of the amendment to JPMs engagement letter.
-14-
49. Finally, the Recommendation Statement states that [f]ollowing the deliberations, the Board approved the Merger Agreement and the recommendation to stockholders, with Mr. Gutierrez dissenting and Mr. Nguyen abstaining as the Companys CEO. (Recommendation Statement at 21). The Recommendation Statement fails to disclose why Nguyens position as the Companys CEO caused him to abstain from the vote on the transaction. Indeed, Nguyen was heavily involved in negotiation of the Proposed Transaction, such that if Nguyen was sufficiently conflicted to necessitate his abstention on the merger vote, then it calls into question the entire deal process.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
50. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the Court of Chancery, individually and on behalf of all other holders of Sizmek common stock (except Defendants herein and any persons, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related to or affiliated with them and their successors in interest) who are or will be threatened with injury arising from Defendants wrongful actions, as more fully described herein (the Class).
51. This action is properly maintainable as a class action.
52. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
-15-
There are hundreds of Sizmek stockholders who are scattered throughout the United States. As of August 12, 2016, there were 29,148,055 shares of Sizmek common stock issued and outstanding.
53. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, including, inter alia, whether:
a. | The Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose all material information necessary to allow Sizmek stockholders to tender their shares on a fully informed basis; |
b. | Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are being and will continue to be injured by the wrongful conduct alleged herein and, if so, what is the proper remedy and/or measure of damages; and |
c. | Plaintiff and the other members of the Class will be damaged irreparably by the Director Defendants conduct. |
54. Plaintiff is committed to prosecuting the action and has retained competent counsel experienced in litigation of this nature. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class, and Plaintiff has the same interests as the other members of the Class. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class.
55. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class that would establish incompatible standards of
-16-
conduct for Defendants or adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class that would as a practical matter be disjunctive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.
56. The Director Defendants have acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to, and causing injury to, the Class and, therefore, preliminary and final injunctive relief on behalf of the Class, as a whole, is appropriate.
57. Plaintiff and the Class have no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT I
DIRECT CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
58. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as if set forth in full herein.
59. The Director Defendants, as Sizmek directors, owe the Class the utmost fiduciary duties of due care, good faith, candor and loyalty.
60. The Director Defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Transaction by failing to disclose all material information necessary to allow Sizmek stockholders to make a fully informed decision whether to tender their shares of stock in the Tender Offer.
61. As a result of the Director Defendants breaches of fiduciary duty, the Class will be harmed by virtue of being deprived of their right to cast a fully informed vote on the Merger Agreement.
-17-
62. Plaintiff and the Class have no adequate remedy at law.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
a. | Finding the Director Defendants liable for breaching their fiduciary duties owed to the Class; |
b. | Certifying the proposed Class; |
c. | Awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including attorneys, accountants, and experts fees; and |
d. | Awarding such other and further relief as is just and equitable. |
Dated: September 2, 2016
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC | ||
By: |
/s/ Peter B. Andrews | |
Peter B. Andrews (#4623) | ||
Craig J. Springer (#5529) | ||
David M. Sborz (#6203) | ||
3801 Kennett Pike | ||
Building C, Suite 305 | ||
Wilmington, DE 19807 | ||
(302) 504-4957 | ||
Counsel for Plaintiff |
-18-
O((4>^XOES>Q\2Z>,7[-^P@8U46C6(0,].'J(T@-.Z
M@4 !50>0 ]]9Q3B6A#/>Z8YVX+&.D*@!R GG*O"^QVB]L]@\KK2QU*>9,8
M]2D9JXA6[.HY8NW?HND B4D%W#-PN*:!0.@(&2(U/?J[V'Z6]&/N_OOI?9?1]1N[[IZ[^3]-R_AZOAU\OOYW_/?[7J/R>G@+N,N
M_I+["C_2CZ1]H[(?_DO;^7\1>?N7MOYOJ>Y_N>H_-ZNOG]_ 2L3IZ0Z>W_$3
8N