Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
` ZEV ASH, IRA,
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
`OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES
`LAWS
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLURALSIGHT, INC., AARON
`SKONNARD, ARNE DUNCAN,
`BONITA C. STEWART, BRAD
`RENCHER, FREDERICK ONION,
`GARY CRITTENDEN, KARENANN
`TERRELL, LEAH JOHNSON, RYAN
`HINKLE, SCOTT DORSEY, and TIM
`MAUDLIN,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Zev Ash, IRA (“Plaintiff”) by and through his undersigned attorneys, brings this
`
`action on behalf of himself, and alleges the following based upon personal knowledge as to those
`
`allegations concerning Plaintiff and, as to all other matters, upon the investigation of counsel,
`
`which includes, without limitation: (a) review and analysis of public filings made by Pluralsight,
`
`Inc. (“Pluralsight” or the “Company”) and other related parties and non-parties with the United
`
`States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); (b) review and analysis of press releases
`
`and other publications disseminated by certain of the Defendants (defined below) and other
`
`related non-parties; (c) review of news articles, shareholder communications, and postings on the
`
`Company’s website concerning the Company’s public statements; and (d) review of other
`
`publicly available information concerning Pluralsight and the Defendants.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action brought by Plaintiff against Pluralsight and the Company’s
`
`Board of Directors (the “Board” or the “Individual Defendants”) for their violations of Section
`
`14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15.U.S.C. §§ 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC
`
`Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9, in connection with the proposed sale of the Company to Vista
`
`Equity Partners Management, LLC (“Vista”) through its affiliates Lake Holdings, LP (“Parent
`
`I”), Lake Guarantor, LLC (“Parent II,” and together with Parent I, the “Parent Entities”), Lake
`
`Merger Sub I, Inc. (“Merger Sub I”), and Lake Merger Sub II, LLC (“Merger Sub II,” together
`
`with Merger Sub I, the “Merger Subs,” and together with the Parent Entities, the “Buyer
`
`Parties”) (the “Proposed Transaction”).
`
`2.
`
`On December 13, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into an
`
`Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with Vista. Pursuant to the terms of
`
`the Merger Agreement the Company’s shareholders will receive $20.26 in cash per share of
`
`Pluralsight owned (the “Merger Consideration”).
`
`3.
`
`On January 29, 2021, in order to convince the Company’s shareholders to vote in
`
`favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
`
`misleading proxy statement with the SEC (the “Proxy Statement”), in violation of Sections 14(a)
`
`and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
`
`4.
`
`For these reasons, and as set forth in detail herein, Plaintiff asserts claims against
`
`Pluralsight and the Board for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
`
`Rule 14a-9. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the
`
`Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information discussed below is disclosed to
`
`Pluralsight shareholders before the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Defendants’
`
`violations of the Exchange Act.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all claims asserted herein pursuant
`
`to Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C § 78aa, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Plaintiff alleges
`
`violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over all of the Defendants because each is
`
`either a corporation that conducts business in, solicits shareholders in, and/or maintains
`
`operations within, this District, or is an individual who is either present in this District for
`
`jurisdictional purposes or has sufficient minimum contacts with this District so as to make the
`
`exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible under traditional notions of fair play and
`
`substantial justice.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial portion of the
`
`transactions and wrongs complained of herein occurred in this District.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, the owner of Pluralsight
`
`Defendant Pluralsight is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its
`
`shares.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`principal executive offices located at 182 North Union Avenue, Farmington, Utah 84025. The
`
`Company’s common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “PS.”
`
`10.
`
`Defendant Aaron Skonnard (“Skonnard”) is and has been the Chief Executive
`
`Officer and the Chairman of the Board of Pluralsight at all times during the relevant time period.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Defendant Arne Duncan (“Duncan”) is and has been a director of Pluralsight at all
`
`times during the relevant time period.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant Bonita C. Stewart (“Stewart”) is and has been a director of Pluralsight
`
`at all times during the relevant time period.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant Brad Rencher (“Rencher”) is and has been a director of Pluralsight at
`
`all times during the relevant time period.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant Frederick Onion (“Onion”) is and has been a director of Pluralsight at
`
`all times during the relevant time period.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Gary Crittenden (“Crittenden”) is and has been a director of Pluralsight
`
`at all times during the relevant time period.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Karenann Terrell (“Terrell”) is and has been a director of Pluralsight at
`
`all times during the relevant time period.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant Ryan Hinkle (“Hinkle”) is and has been a director of Pluralsight at all
`
`times during the relevant time period.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant Scott Dorsey (“Dorsey”) is and has been a director of Pluralsight at all
`
`times during the relevant time period.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant Tim Maudlin (“Maudlin”) is and has been a director of Pluralsight at
`
`all times during the relevant time period.
`
`20.
`
`Defendants Skonnard, Duncan, Stewart, Rencher, Onion, Crittenden, Terrell,
`
`Hinkle, Dorsey, and Maudlin are collectively referred to herein as the “Individual Defendants.”
`
`21.
`
`The Individual Defendants, along with Defendant Pluralsight, are collectively
`
`referred to herein as “Defendants.”
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`
`Background of the Company
`
`22.
`
`Pluralsight, together with its subsidiaries, is a leading cloud-based technology
`
`skills development platform committed to closing the global technology skills gap. Learners on
`
`our platform can acquire today’s most valuable technology skills through high-quality learning
`
`experiences delivered by subject-matter experts. Real-time measurement and assessment of a
`
`learner’s performance on our platform provides technology leaders with visibility into the
`
`capabilities of their teams and confidence their teams will deliver on critical objectives. Our
`
`platform empowers teams to keep up with the pace of technological change, puts the right people
`
`on the right projects, and boosts productivity.
`
`23.
`
`Pluralsight is a holding company and has no material assets other than its
`
`ownership of the Holdings units.
`
`The Company Announces the Proposed Transaction
`
`24.
`
`On December 13, 2020, the Company jointly issued a press release announcing
`
`the Proposed Transaction. The press release stated in part:
`
`SILICON SLOPES, Utah, Dec. 13, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pluralsight,
`Inc. (NASDAQ: PS), the technology workforce development company, today
`announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Vista
`Equity Partners (“Vista”), a leading global investment firm focused on
`enterprise software, data and technology-enabled businesses.
`
`Under the terms of the agreement, Vista, in partnership with its institutional co-
`investors including Partners Group, will acquire all outstanding shares of
`Pluralsight common stock for $20.26 per share in an all-cash transaction valued at
`approximately $3.5 billion. The purchase price represents a premium of
`approximately 25% to the company’s volume weighted average closing stock
`price for the 30 trading days prior to today’s announcement.
`
`Pluralsight, which is headquartered in Utah and has over 1,700 employees,
`provides
`technology workforce development solutions,
`including skills
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 6 of 15
`
`intelligence, skills development and engineering management capabilities. These
`solutions help develop world-class technologists and technology teams and
`empower them to drive the next wave of innovation for their organizations. The
`company’s two products, Pluralsight Skills and Pluralsight Flow, are used by
`more than 17,000 customers, including 70% of Fortune 500 companies.
`
`“We are pleased to have reached this agreement with Vista, which delivers
`significant immediate cash value to our shareholders, and positions Pluralsight to
`continue meeting and exceeding the expectations of our customers,” said Gary
`Crittenden, Pluralsight’s lead independent director. “This transaction, which is the
`result of a robust process overseen and directed by an independent Transaction
`Committee of the Board of Directors, is a testament to the value Pluralsight has
`created and the reputation our team has built. Enterprises all over the world rely
`on Pluralsight’s solutions to strengthen technology skills, innovate faster and meet
`their core objectives. With Vista’s support, we are confident that Pluralsight will
`be even better positioned to deliver value to our customers. We are confident that
`this transaction is the best path forward for Pluralsight and our stakeholders.”
`
`“Today’s announcement is an exciting milestone for Pluralsight as we begin the
`next phase of our evolution,” said Aaron Skonnard, co-founder and CEO of
`Pluralsight. “Through this partnership with Vista, we will be able to move faster
`and be more agile, accelerate our strategic vision and, ultimately, deliver deeper,
`more powerful solutions that help companies adapt and thrive in the digital age.
`We are relentlessly focused on helping enterprises improve and optimize their
`technology workforce and providing
`the most effective path
`to skills
`transformation for their technology teams. The global Vista ecosystem of leading
`enterprise software companies provides significant resources and institutional
`knowledge that will open doors and help fuel our growth. We’re thrilled that we
`will be able to leverage Vista’s expertise to further strengthen our market leading
`position.”
`
`“We have seen firsthand that the demand for skilled software engineers continues
`to outstrip supply, and we expect this trend to persist as we move into a hybrid
`online-offline world across all industries and interactions, with business leaders
`recognizing that technological innovation is critical to business success,” said
`Monti Saroya, co-head of the Vista Flagship Fund and senior managing director at
`Vista. “Through its platform, Pluralsight enables these leaders to improve
`productivity and provide career pathing opportunities across their IT workforces.”
`
`“Pluralsight and Vista share the belief that software is key to unlocking
`opportunity and progress,” said Adrian Alonso, managing director at Vista. “We
`are impressed by the outstanding business that Pluralsight has already built and
`look forward to partnering with the management team to enable the company’s
`next phase of growth and further their mission to democratize technology skills.”
`
`Transaction Details
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`Under the terms of the agreement, which was unanimously approved and
`recommended by an independent Transaction Committee and then unanimously
`approved by the Pluralsight Board of Directors, Pluralsight shareholders will
`receive $20.26 in cash for each share of common stock they own.
`
`Pluralsight has also entered into a voting agreement with certain of its
`shareholders, under which such shareholders have agreed to vote all of their
`Pluralsight shares in favor of the transaction, subject to certain terms and
`conditions contained therein. The Pluralsight shares subject to the voting
`agreement represent a majority of the current outstanding voting power of
`Pluralsight shares. The transaction is also subject to approval by a majority of
`shareholders of Pluralsight that are not party to the company’s Tax Receivable
`Agreement.
`
`In response to receipt of unsolicited acquisition interest, Pluralsight engaged in a
`robust process, including evaluating transaction alternatives against Pluralsight’s
`standalone plan and other strategic alternatives. Following this process, the
`Transaction Committee and the Board each unanimously determined that the
`transaction with Vista is in the best interests of Pluralsight and its shareholders.
`
`The transaction is expected to close in the first half of 2021, subject to customary
`closing conditions, including approval by Pluralsight shareholders and receipt of
`regulatory approvals. Upon completion of the transaction, Pluralsight will become
`a privately held company and shares of Pluralsight common stock will no longer
`be listed on any public market. Pluralsight will continue to be headquartered in
`Silicon Slopes, Utah.
`
`Advisors
`
`Qatalyst Partners is serving as financial advisor to Pluralsight and Wilson Sonsini
`Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation is serving as legal counsel. For
`Vista, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is serving as financial advisor, and Kirkland &
`Ellis LLP is serving as legal counsel.
`
`FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS
`AND/OR MATERIAL OMISSIONS IN THE PROXY STATEMENT
`
`25.
`
`On January 29, 2021, the Company authorized the filing of the Proxy Statement
`
`with the SEC. The Proxy Statement recommends that the Company’s shareholders vote in favor
`
`of the Proposed Transaction.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants were obligated to carefully review the Proxy Statement prior to its
`
`filing with the SEC and dissemination to the Company’s shareholders to ensure that it did not
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`contain any material misrepresentations or omissions. However, the Proxy Statement
`
`misrepresents and/or omits material information that is necessary for the Company’s
`
`shareholders to make informed decisions regarding whether to vote in favor of the Proposed
`
`Transaction, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
`
`Material False and Misleading Statements or Material
`Misrepresentations or Omissions Regarding the Company’s Financial Projections
`
`27.
`
`The Proxy Statement contains projections prepared by
`
`the Company’s
`
`management concerning the Proposed Transaction, but fails to provide material information
`
`concerning such.
`
`28.
`
`The SEC has repeatedly emphasized that disclosure of non-GAAP projections can
`
`be inherently misleading, and has therefore heightened its scrutiny of the use of such
`
`projections.1 Indeed, on May 17, 2016, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance released new
`
`and updated Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DIs”) on the use of non-GAAP
`
`financial measures that demonstrate the SEC’s tightening policy.2 One of the new C&DIs
`
`regarding forward-looking information, such as financial projections, explicitly requires
`
`companies to provide any reconciling metrics that are available without unreasonable efforts.
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Nicolas Grabar and Sandra Flow, Non-GAAP Financial Measures: The SEC’s
`Evolving Views, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial
`Regulation (June 24, 2016), available at https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/06/24/non-gaap-
`financial-measuresthesecs evolving-views/; Gretchen Morgenson, Fantasy Math Is Helping
`Companies Spin Losses
`Into Profits, N.Y. Times, Apr. 22, 2016, available at
`http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/business/fantasy-mathis-helping-companies-spin-ossesinto-
`profits.html?_r=0.
`
` Non-GAAP Financial Measures, Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations, U.S. SECURITIES
`AND
`EXCHANGE
`COMMISSION
`(May
`17,
`2017),
`at
`available
`https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/nongaapinterp.htm.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`29.
`
`In order to make management’s projections included in the Proxy Statement
`
`materially complete and not misleading, Defendants must provide a reconciliation table of the
`
`non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP measures.
`
`30.
`
`Specifically, with respect to the Company’s projections, the Company must
`
`disclose the line item projections for the financial metrics that were used to calculate the non-
`
`GAAP measures, including: (i) Operating (Loss) Income; and (ii) Unlevered Free Cash Flow.
`
`31.
`
`Disclosure of the above information is vital to provide investors with the complete
`
`mix of information necessary to make an informed decision when voting on the Proposed
`
`Transaction. Specifically, the above information would provide shareholders with a better
`
`understanding of the analyses performed by the Company’s financial advisor in support of its
`
`opinion.
`
`Material False and Misleading Statements or Material
`Misrepresentations or Omissions Regarding Qatalyst’s Financial Opinion
`
`The Proxy Statement contains the financial analyses and opinion of Qatalyst
`
`32.
`
`Partners LP (“Qatalyst”) concerning the Proposed Transaction, but fails to provide material
`
`information concerning such.
`
`33. With respect to Qatalyst’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Proxy Statement
`
`fails to disclose: (i) the basis for Qatalyst’s selection of unlevered free cash flow multiples of
`
`20.x to 35.0x to derive the terminal value; (ii) the inputs and the assumptions underlying
`
`Qatalyst’s used of the range of discount rates of 9.5% to 11.0%; (iii); disclose Qatalyst’s
`
`rationale and basis for applying a range of next-twelve-months Unlevered Free Cash Flow
`
`terminal multiples of 20.0x to 35.0x to Calendar Year 2024 ($161 million) instead of Calendar
`
`Year 2025 ($202 million); and (iv) disclose the “present value of the net operating losses,
`
`adjusted for dilution” that were provided by Pluralsight management.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`34. With respect to Qatalyst’s Selected Transactions Analysis, the Proxy Statement
`
`fails to disclose: (i) the cash and cash equivalents; (ii) principal amount outstanding under
`
`Pluralsight’s debt; (iii) cash settlement of capped call options; and (iv) and funds to be paid at the
`
`closing of the mergers pursuant to the draft tax receivable agreement amendment used in the
`
`analysis.
`
`35. When a banker’s endorsement of the fairness of a transaction is touted to
`
`shareholders, the valuation methods used to arrive at that opinion as well as the key inputs and
`
`range of ultimate values generated by those analyses must also be fairly disclosed. Moreover,
`
`the disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides shareholders with
`
`a basis to project the future financial performance of a company and allows shareholders to
`
`better understand the financial analyses performed by the Company’s financial advisor in support
`
`of its fairness opinion.
`
`36. Without the above described information, the Company’s shareholders are unable
`
`to cast a fully informed vote on the Proposed Transaction. Accordingly, in order to provide
`
`shareholders with a complete mix of information, the omitted information described above
`
`should be disclosed.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Against All Defendants for Violations of Section 14(a)
`of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 Promulgated Thereunder)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth
`
`37.
`
`herein.
`
`38.
`
`Section 14(a)(1) of the Exchange Act makes it “unlawful for any person, by the
`
`use of the mails or by any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of any facility of a
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`national securities exchange or otherwise, in contravention of such rules and regulations as the
`
`Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection
`
`of investors, to solicit or to permit the use of his name to solicit any proxy or consent or
`
`authorization in respect of any security (other than an exempted security) registered pursuant to
`
`section 78l of this title.” 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a)(1).
`
`39.
`
`Rule 14a-9, promulgated by the SEC pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Exchange
`
`Act, provides that communications with stockholders in a recommendation statement shall not
`
`contain “any statement which, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is
`
`made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or which omits to state any
`
`material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein not false or misleading.” 17
`
`C.F.R. § 240.14a-9.
`
`40.
`
`Defendants have issued the Proxy Statement with the intention of soliciting
`
`shareholders support for the Proposed Transaction. Each of the Defendants reviewed and
`
`authorized the dissemination of the Proxy Statement, which fails to provide critical information
`
`regarding, among other things, the financial projections for the Company.
`
`41.
`
`In so doing, Defendants made untrue statements of fact and/or omitted material
`
`facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. Each of the Defendants, by virtue
`
`of their roles as officers and/or directors, were aware of the omitted information but failed to
`
`disclose such information, in violation of Section 14(a). The Defendants were therefore
`
`negligent, as they had reasonable grounds to believe material facts existed that were misstated or
`
`omitted from the Proxy Statement, but nonetheless failed to obtain and disclose such information
`
`to shareholders although they could have done so without extraordinary effort.
`
`42.
`
`The Defendants knew or were negligent in not knowing that the Proxy Statement
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`is materially misleading and omits material facts that are necessary to render it not misleading.
`
`The Defendants undoubtedly reviewed and relied upon the omitted information identified above
`
`in connection with their decision to approve and recommend the Proposed Transaction.
`
`43.
`
`The Defendants knew or were negligent in not knowing that the material
`
`information identified above has been omitted from the Proxy Statement, rendering the sections
`
`of the Proxy Statement identified above to be materially incomplete and misleading. Indeed, the
`
`Defendants were required to be particularly attentive to the procedures followed in preparing the
`
`Proxy Statement and review it carefully before it was disseminated, to corroborate that there are
`
`no material misstatements or omissions.
`
`44.
`
`The Defendants were, at the very least, negligent in preparing and reviewing the
`
`Proxy Statement. The preparation of a Proxy Statement by corporate insiders containing
`
`materially false or misleading statements or omitting a material fact constitutes negligence. The
`
`Defendants were negligent in choosing to omit material information from the Proxy Statement or
`
`failing to notice the material omissions in the Proxy Statement upon reviewing it, which they
`
`were required to do carefully as the Company’s directors. Indeed, the Defendants were
`
`intricately involved in the process leading up to the signing of the Merger Agreement and the
`
`preparation of the Company’s financial projections.
`
`45.
`
`The misrepresentations and omissions in the Proxy Statement are material to
`
`Plaintiff, who will be deprived of his right to cast an informed vote if such misrepresentations
`
`and omissions are not corrected prior to the vote on the Proposed Transaction.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Only through the exercise of this Court’s
`
`equitable powers can Plaintiff be fully protected from the immediate and irreparable injury that
`
`Defendants’ actions threaten to inflict.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 13 of 15
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Against the Individual Defendants for
`Violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth
`
`
`
`47.
`
`herein.
`
`48.
`
`The Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of Pluralsight within the
`
`meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as
`
`officers and/or directors of Pluralsight, and participation in and/or awareness of the Company’s
`
`operations and/or intimate knowledge of the incomplete and misleading statements contained in
`
`the Proxy Statement filed with the SEC, they had the power to influence and control and did
`
`influence and control, directly or indirectly, the decision making of the Company, including the
`
`content and dissemination of the various statements that Plaintiff contends are materially
`
`incomplete and misleading.
`
`49.
`
`Each of the Individual Defendants was provided with, or had unlimited access to,
`
`copies of the Proxy Statement and other statements alleged by Plaintiff to be misleading prior to
`
`and/or shortly after these statements were issued and had the ability to prevent the issuance of the
`
`statements or cause the statements to be corrected.
`
`50.
`
`In particular, each of the Individual Defendants had direct and supervisory
`
`involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Company, and, therefore, is presumed to have
`
`had the power to control or influence the particular transactions giving rise to the Exchange Act
`
`violations alleged herein, and exercised the same. The Proxy Statement at issue contains the
`
`unanimous recommendation of each of the Individual Defendants to approve the Proposed
`
`Transaction. They were thus directly involved in preparing this document.
`
`51.
`
`In addition, as set forth in the Proxy Statement sets forth at length and described
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`herein, the Individual Defendants were involved in negotiating, reviewing, and approving the
`
`Merger Agreement. The Proxy Statement purports to describe the various issues and information
`
`that the Individual Defendants reviewed and considered. The Individual Defendants participated
`
`in drafting and/or gave their input on the content of those descriptions.
`
`52.
`
`By virtue of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants have violated Section 20(a)
`
`of the Exchange Act.
`
`53.
`
`As set forth above, the Individual Defendants had the ability to exercise control
`
`over and did control a person or persons who have each violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 by
`
`their acts and omissions as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as controlling persons,
`
`these Defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. As a direct and
`
`proximate result of Individual Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Only through the exercise of this Court’s
`
`equitable powers can Plaintiff be fully protected from the immediate and irreparable injury that
`
`Defendants’ actions threaten to inflict.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants and all persons acting in
`
`concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Proposed Transaction;
`
`B.
`
`Directing the Individual Defendants to disseminate an Amendment to the Proxy
`
`Statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material
`
`facts required in it or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading;
`
`C.
`
`Directing Defendants to account to Plaintiff for all damages sustained because of
`
`the wrongs complained of herein;
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01594 Document 1 Filed 02/23/21 Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
`
`Plaintiff’s attorneys’ and experts’ fees; and
`
`E.
`
`Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Dated: February 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Joshua M. Lifshitz
`Joshua M. Lifshitz
`Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com
`LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
`1190 Broadway
`Hewlett, New York 11557
`Telephone: (516) 493-9780
`Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`