Regal Entertainment Group (NYSE:RGC) Files An 8-K Other EventsItem 8.01. Other Events.
As previously disclosed, (i)on December5, 2017, Regal Entertainment Group, a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with Cineworld Group plc, a public limited company incorporated in England and Wales (the “Parent”), Crown Intermediate Holdco,Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent (“US Holdco”), and Crown Merger Sub,Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of US Holdco (the “Merger Sub”), to which it is proposed that the Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the “Merger”), and (ii)on January29, 2018 a purported class action complaint relating to the Merger, captioned Baldassano v. Regal Entertainment Groupetal., Case No.195178-3, was filed on behalf of the stockholders against members of the board of directors of the Company, the Company, Parent, US Holdco and Merger Sub in the Chancery Court for Knox County, Tennessee in the Sixth Judicial District at Knoxville (the “Action”). The Action alleges that the board of directors of the Company breached its fiduciary duties to the stockholders by means of (A)agreeing to an allegedly unfair price in the proposed merger and (B)allegedly engineering a transaction to benefit themselves and/or Parent without regard to the Company’s stockholders. The complaint also generally asserts that the Company, Parent, US Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the board of directors’ breach of its fiduciary duties. The Action seeks, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger agreement (to the extent the merger has already been consummated), damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
On February12, 2018, the Company and the plaintiff entered into a memorandum of understanding in which the plaintiff agreed to dismiss his claims with prejudice, and to dismiss claims asserted on behalf of the putative class without prejudice, in return for the Company’s agreement to make the supplemental disclosures set forth herein.
The Company believes that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws and that the definitive information statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on February2, 2018 (the “Information Statement”) disclosed all material information required to be disclosed therein. However, to avoid the risk of the Action delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such action, it has agreed, to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, all of which are set forth below and which should be read in conjunction with the Information Statement
The memorandum of understanding will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that the Company’s stockholders are entitled to receive in the Merger.
SUPPLEMENT TO INFORMATION STATEMENT
In connection with the settlement of the shareholder suit as described in this Form8-K, the Company has agreed to make the following supplemental disclosures to the Information Statement. This supplemental information should be read in conjunction with the Information Statement, which should be read in its entirety. Defined terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Information Statement.
1. The section of the Information Statement titled “The Merger — Background of the Merger” is hereby supplemented as follows:
A. By amending and restating the second full paragraph on Page21 to read as follows:
As part of the strategic alternatives review, the Company considered potential share repurchases, recapitalization transactions and business combinations with potential strategic and financial partners. The Company and Morgan Stanley contacted 71 parties in North America and internationally, including both financial and strategic buyers. Only nine of the parties contacted executed non-disclosure agreements with the Company and none of them submitted indications of interest or offers to acquire the Company. The non-disclosure agreements contained customary standstill provisions prohibiting, among other things, the counterparty or its representatives from acquiring shares of the Company’s common stock and waging a proxy contest or other shareholder activism campaign and included a customary provision prohibiting such