Washington | 0-11559 | 91-0849125 | ||
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (Commission File Number) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) | ||
4424 North Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley, Washington | 99216 | |||
(Address of principal executive offices) | (Zip Code) |
x | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
¨ | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
¨ | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
¨ | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
(d) | Exhibits |
Exhibit Number | Description | |
99.1 | ||
99.2 | ||
99.3 |
KEY TRONIC CORPORATION (Registrant) | ||||||
Date: October 26, 2017 | ||||||
By: | /s/ Brett R. Larsen | |||||
Brett R. Larsen, Executive Vice President of Administration, CFO and Treasurer |
CONTACTS: | Brett Larsen | Michael Newman | ||
Chief Financial Officer | Investor Relations | |||
Key Tronic Corporation | StreetConnect | |||
(509) 927-5500 | (206) 729-3625 |
• | An actual exchange offer has not been made by Issuer pursuant to the preliminary materials filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. |
• | If this offer were in fact made, the purported offer would give Key Tronic shareholders only one Cemtrex share (which had a closing price of $3.19 as of September 14, 2017) for one Key Tronic share (which had a closing price of $6.85 as of September 14, 2017). Key Tronic believes that there is no reason to assume that the public prices are not a significant market indicator of the relative values of the shares of the two companies. The exchange would have resulted in an immediate discount of approximately 53% per share to the price of Key Tronic’s common stock based on the closing prices on September 14, 2017. |
• | The financial comparisons that Issuer makes to Key Tronic are very misleading because, among other things, Issuer does not properly identify the periods it is comparing, appropriately consider the size and maturities of Key Tronic and the Issuer, or explain how ratios and percentages are calculated. |
• | Financial comparisons depend on reliable underlying auditor-reviewed financial information. Key Tronic is very skeptical of the accuracy of Issuer’s reported financial information due in part to the fact that: |
◦ | Issuer is not audited by a nationally recognized accounting firm. |
◦ | One published media report has raised questions about Issuer’s auditor, Bharat Parikh & Associates, headquartered in India. According to public records of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, Bharat Parikh & Associates audited a total of five public companies during the twelve months ending in March 2017, all of which were small public companies. |
• | The Issuer has not addressed how it would be able to pay off Key Tronic debt or address covenants contained in Key Tronic’s loan agreements if Issuer were to consolidate or merge with Key Tronic. |
• | Key Tronic has never encountered Issuer in the electronic manufacturing services (EMS) market space, nor was Key Tronic aware of Issuer’s existence before Issuer filed a registration statement regarding this purported offer. |
• | Our initial research shows Issuer reports approximately $45 million of EMS revenue. In our opinion, this does not qualify Issuer to make any statements as to how it might operate an EMS business like Key Tronic which is over 10 times Issuer’s current size in terms of revenue. |