throbber
Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 13
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`Case No. _____________
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
`OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES
`LAWS
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`BRIAN JONES,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`U.S. WELL SERVICES, INC., JOEL
`BROUSSARD, DAVID L. TREADWELL,
`RICHARD BURNETT, RYAN CARROLL,
`STEVE S. HABACHY, ADAM KLEIN, DAVID
`J. MATLIN, KYLE O’NEILL, and EDDIE
`WATSON,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Brian Jones (“Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel, for his
`
`complaint against defendants, alleges upon personal knowledge with respect to himself, and upon
`
`information and belief based upon, inter alia, the investigation of counsel as to all other allegations
`
`herein, as follows:
`
`NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
`
`This is a stockholder action brought by Plaintiff against U.S. Well Services, Inc.
`
`1.
`
`(“USWS” or the “Company”) and the members of USWS’ Board of Directors (the “Board” or the
`
`“Individual Defendants”) for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
`
`Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78n(a), 78t(a), and U.S. Securities and
`
`Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. §240.14a-9 (“Rule 14a-9”), in connection
`
`with the Board’s attempt to sell USWS to ProFrac Holding Corp. (“ProFrac”) (the “Proposed
`
`Transaction”).
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 2 of 13
`
`2.
`
`On June 21, 2022, USWS entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
`
`ProFrac and Thunderclap Merger Sub I, Inc. (“Merger Sub”) (the “Merger Agreement”). Pursuant
`
`to the terms of the Merger Agreement, ProFrac will acquire USWS, with USWS shareholders
`
`receiving 0.3366 shares of ProFrac Class A common stock for each USWS common share.
`
`3.
`
`On September 28, 2022, the Board authorized the filing of the materially
`
`incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement (the “Proxy Statement”)
`
`with the SEC. Specifically, the Proxy Statement, which recommends that USWS stockholders
`
`vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction, contains materially incomplete and
`
`misleading information concerning, among other things: (i) the Company’s financial projections
`
`for USWS and ProFrac; (ii) the financial analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by
`
`the financial advisor to the special committee of the Board (“Special Committee”), Piper Sandler
`
`& Co. (“Piper”); (iii) the background of the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) potential conflicts of
`
`interest faced by Piper and Company insiders.
`
`4.
`
`The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation
`
`of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as USWS stockholders need such information in
`
`order to make a fully informed decision in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
`
`5.
`
`The special meeting for USWS stockholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction
`
`is currently scheduled for October 31, 2022. It is imperative that such Exchange Act violations
`
`are promptly cured to enable Plaintiff and USWS’ other shareholders to make an informed
`
`decision whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. Therefore, Plaintiff
`
`seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 3 of 13
`
`6.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein for violations of Sections
`
`14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder pursuant to
`
`Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question
`
`jurisdiction).
`
`7.
`
`Personal jurisdiction exists over the defendants because each defendant either
`
`conducts business in or maintains operations within this District, or is an individual with 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.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because defendants
`
`are found or are inhabitants or transact business in this District. USWS’ common stock trades on
`
`the Nasdaq Capital Market, which is headquartered in this District, rendering venue in this District
`
`appropriate.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff is, and has been at all relevant times, the owner of shares of USWS
`
`common stock.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant USWS is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive offices
`
`located at 1360 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1800, Houston, TX 7705. USWS’ shares trade on the
`
`Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol “USWS.”
`
`11.
`
`Defendant Joel Broussard has been Chairman of the Board and a director of the
`
`Company at all relevant times.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant David L. Treadwell has been Lead Independent Director and a director
`
`of the Company at all relevant times.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant Richard Burnett has been a director of the Company at all relevant times.
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 4 of 13
`
`times.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant Ryan Carroll has been a director of the Company at all relevant times.
`
`Defendant Steve S. Habachy has been a director of the Company at all relevant
`
`Defendant Adam Klein has been a director of the Company at all relevant times.
`
`Defendant David J. Matlin has been a director of the Company at all relevant times.
`
`Defendant Kyle O’Neill has been President, Chief Executive Officer and a director
`
`of the Company at all relevant times.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Eddie Watson has been a director of the Company at all relevant times.
`
`Defendants identified in paragraphs 11-19 are collectively referred to herein as the
`
`“Board” or the “Individual Defendants.”
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`
`Background of the Company
`
`21.
`
`USWS is a leading provider of hydraulic fracturing services and a market leader in
`
`electric fracture stimulation. USWS’ patented electric frac technology provides one of the first
`
`fully electric, mobile well stimulation systems powered by locally supplied natural gas, including
`
`field gas sourced directly from the wellhead. According to the Company, its electric frac
`
`technology dramatically decreases emissions and sound pollution while generating exceptional
`
`operational efficiencies, including significant customer fuel cost savings versus conventional
`
`diesel fleets.
`
`The Proposed Transaction
`
`22.
`
`On June 21, 2022, USWS announced that it had entered into the Proposed
`
`Transaction, stating, in relevant part:
`
`WILLOW PARK, Texas and HOUSTON, June 21, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- ProFrac
`Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: PFHC) (“ProFrac” or the “Company”) announced today
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 5 of 13
`
`that it has reached an agreement to acquire U.S. Well Services, Inc.
`(NASDAQ: USWS) (“USWS”) in a stock-for-stock transaction with an exchange
`ratio of 0.0561 shares of ProFrac Class A common stock for each share of USWS
`Class A common stock. The acquisition is expected to be completed in the fourth
`quarter of 2022, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions,
`including the approval of USWS stockholders.
`
`The combination creates a market leader in NextGen frac solutions and a combined
`company with an expected 44 active fleets by the end of 2022:
`
`
`• Transaction expected to expand ProFrac’s fleet to 44 active fleets by year
`end, including 12 electric fleets, 13 Tier IV dual fuel fleets, and 3 Tier IV
`diesel fleets
`• Combined company expected to be the largest provider of electric frac
`services with 12 electric fleets
`• Accelerates ProFrac’s ESG strategy of reducing fuel costs and minimizing
`its emissions footprint
`• Marries leading edge efficiency and cost structure from ProFrac with the
`largest electric fleet platform in the industry to deliver exceptional value for
`the combined company and substantial cost savings to customers
`• ProFrac would acquire USWS’ industry leading intellectual property
`portfolio that gave rise to electric frac technology with the market’s first e-
`fleet deployment in 2014, which includes over 110 patents
`• USWS Convertible Senior Notes and Series A Redeemable Preferred
`Shares to be converted into shares of ProFrac Class A common stock at
`closing
`• Combined company expected to maintain a conservative balance sheet;
`ProFrac expects to separately finance remaining USWS debt at closing
`• Expected to result in approximately $35 million of annual cost synergies
`and eliminate ProFrac’s expected
`license
`fees
`to USWS of
`approximately $22.5 million per year over the next four years
`• Expected to be accretive to 2023 Adjusted EBITDA
`
`Matt Wilks, ProFrac’s Executive Chairman, commented, “The acquisition of U.S.
`Well Services solidifies ProFrac’s position as an industry leader in electric
`hydraulic fracturing, which we believe represents the future of the industry. In
`today’s environment, we believe electric frac fleets provide improved efficiency,
`lower R&M costs, greater value, and a lower overall cost of completion to our
`customer. It is a true win-win scenario for us, our customers, the environment and
`the communities in which we operate.”
`
`Ladd Wilks, ProFrac’s Chief Executive Officer, said, “We are excited to welcome
`the U.S. Well Services team to the ProFrac family. We recognize the hard work of
`everyone to get to this point and I am excited to join forces and build upon the
`foundation this team has established. By leveraging our scale and capabilities along
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 6 of 13
`
`with U.S. Well Services’ Clean Fleet® technology, we intend to make ProFrac
`THE electric fleet provider in the U.S.”
`
`Kyle O’Neill, U.S. Well Services’ President and CEO, added, “We are thrilled to
`join forces with ProFrac. ProFrac is a best-in-class operator, and we believe the
`combined company will be well positioned to capitalize on the growing opportunity
`for electric fracturing services. This combination provides value for U.S. Well
`Services shareholders, employees and customers, and we look forward to working
`with the ProFrac team to realize our shared vision for the business.”
`
`The Materially Incomplete and Misleading Proxy Statement
`
`23.
`
`On September 28, 2022, the Board caused to be filed a materially incomplete and
`
`misleading Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that USWS
`
`stockholders vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction, fails to disclose material
`
`information to Company stockholders, or provides them with materially misleading information,
`
`concerning: (i) the Company’s financial projections for USWS and ProFrac; (ii) the financial
`
`analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Special Committee’s financial advisor
`
`Piper; (iii) the background of the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) potential conflicts of interest
`
`faced by Piper and Company insiders.
`
`Material Misrepresentations and/or Omissions Concerning USWS’ and ProFrac’s Financial
`Projections
`
`
`24.
`
`The Proxy Statement fails to disclose material information concerning the financial
`
`projections for the Company and ProFrac.
`
`25.
`
`For example, according to the Proxy Statement, in connection with its Discounted
`
`Cash Flow Analysis, Piper utilized “unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that USWS and ProFrac
`
`were projected to generate from July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2026, in each case, based on
`
`the USWS management base case and downside case projections for USWS and the USWS
`
`management projections for ProFrac.” Proxy Statement at 120-21. Yet, the Proxy Statement fails
`
`to disclose the USWS unlevered free cash flows for each of the base case and downside case, as
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 7 of 13
`
`well as USWS management’s projected unlevered free cash flows for ProFrac. The Proxy
`
`Statement further fails to disclose how unlevered free cash flows were calculated and the
`
`underlying line items.
`
`26. Moreover, the Proxy Statement wholly fails to disclose USWS management’s
`
`projections for ProFrac which were relied upon by the Special Committee’s financial advisor in
`
`connection with its financial analyses. See id.
`
`27.
`
`In addition, with respect to the Company’s base case and downside case, the Proxy
`
`Statement fails to disclose the line items underlying the calculation of: (i) Adjusted EBITDA; and
`
`(ii) Total Free Cash Flows.
`
`Material Misrepresentations and/or Omissions Concerning Piper’s Financial Analyses
`
`
`28.
`
`The Proxy Statement fails to disclose material information concerning Piper’s
`
`financial analyses.
`
`29. With respect to Piper’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, in addition to the
`
`respective unlevered free cash flows utilized in the analysis, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose
`
`a quantification of: (i) the terminal year projected EBITDA for USWS and ProFrac; (ii) the inputs
`
`and assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 20.0% to 25.0% for USWS and 10.0% to
`
`15.0% for ProFrac; and (iii) the potential value of the Company’s NOLs utilized in the analysis.
`
`30. With respect to Piper’s Select Comparable Company Analyses and Select
`
`Comparable Transaction Analyses, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the individual multiples
`
`and financial metrics for each of the selected companies and transactions analyzed by Piper,
`
`respectively.
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 8 of 13
`
`31. With respect to Piper’s premiums paid analysis, the Proxy Statement fails to
`
`disclose: (i) the transactions analyzed; and (ii) the individual premiums observed for each
`
`transaction.
`
`Material Misrepresentations and/or Omissions Concerning the Background of the Proposed
`Transaction
`
`
`32.
`
`The Proxy Statement fails to disclose material information concerning the
`
`background of the Proposed Transaction.
`
`33.
`
`Specifically, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the terms of the confidentiality
`
`agreements the Company entered into with Company A and Company B during the process leading
`
`up to the Proposed Transaction, including whether the confidentiality agreements contain a “don’t-
`
`ask, don’t-waive” standstill provision that is still in effect and presently precluding either party
`
`from submitting a topping bid for the Company.
`
`Material Misrepresentations and/or Omissions Concerning Piper’s and Company Insiders’
`Potential Conflicts of Interest
`
`
`34.
`
`The Proxy Statement fails to disclose material information concerning Piper’s
`
`potential conflicts of interest.
`
`35.
`
`For example, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the details of any services Piper
`
`or its affiliates have provided to USWS or its affiliates in the two years prior to the delivery of its
`
`fairness opinion, and any compensation Piper or its affiliates have received for such services
`
`provided. Moreover, in its Opinion of Piper Sandler & Co. fairness opinion letter to the Special
`
`Committee, Piper stated:
`
`We are currently engaged by the Acquiror (i) as its financial advisor in connection
`with its acquisition of Signal Peak Silica’s Monahans sand mine, which acquisition
`was announced by Acquiror on June 21, 2022 (see footnote 1) and (ii) as its
`placement agent to upsize its existing term loan and evaluate further debt
`refinancing options. We are also currently separately engaged by two entities, in
`each of which the Acquiror has an equity interest, to evaluate strategic options and
`
` 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 9 of 13
`
`capital-raising options, and with respect to the engagement that includes capital-
`raising options, Acquiror is a potential investor.
`
`
`Proxy Statement, Annex D at D-3. The Proxy Statement fails, however, to disclose the amount of
`
`compensation Piper expects to receive in connection with such services.
`
`36.
`
`The Proxy Statement fails to disclose material information concerning potential
`
`conflicts of interest faced by Company insiders.
`
`37.
`
`Specifically, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose whether any members of
`
`Company management have secured positions with the combined company. The Proxy Statement
`
`further fails to disclose the details of any employment and retention-related discussions and
`
`negotiations that occurred between ProFrac and USWS’ executive officers, including who
`
`participated in all such communications, when they occurred and their content. Moreover, the
`
`Proxy Statement fails to disclose whether any of ProFrac’s proposals or indications of interest
`
`mentioned management retention in the combined company following the Proposed Transaction
`
`or the purchase of or participation in the equity of the surviving corporation.
`
`38.
`
`In sum, the omission of the above-referenced information renders statements in the
`
`“USWS Prospective Financial Information,” “Opinion of the Financial Advisors to the USWS
`
`Special Committee,” “Background of the Merger,” and “Interests of USWS Executive Officers
`
`and Directors in the Merger” sections of the Proxy Statement materially incomplete and misleading
`
`in contravention of the Exchange Act. Absent disclosure of the foregoing material information
`
`prior to the stockholder vote, Plaintiff and the other stockholders of USWS will be unable to make
`
`a sufficiently informed decision in connection with the Proposed Transaction and are thus
`
`threatened with irreparable harm warranting the injunctive relief sought herein.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`COUNT I
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 10 of 13
`
`Claims for Violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 Promulgated
`Thereunder Against the Individual Defendants and USWS
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`The Individual Defendants disseminated the false and misleading Proxy Statement,
`
`which contained statements that, in light of the circumstances under which they were made,
`
`omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements therein not materially misleading,
`
`in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9. USWS is liable as the issuer of
`
`these statements.
`
`41.
`
`The Proxy Statement was prepared, reviewed, and/or disseminated by the
`
`Individual Defendants. By virtue of their positions within the Company, the Individual Defendants
`
`were aware of this information and their duty to disclose this information in the Proxy Statement.
`
`42.
`
`The Individual Defendants were at least negligent in filing the Proxy Statement
`
`with these materially false and misleading statements.
`
`43.
`
`The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement are
`
`material in that a reasonable stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on
`
`the Proposed Transaction. In addition, a reasonable investor will view a full and accurate
`
`disclosure as significantly altering the total mix of information made available in the Proxy
`
`Statement and in other information reasonably available to stockholders.
`
`44.
`
`The Proxy Statement is an essential link in causing Plaintiff and the Company’s
`
`stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction.
`
`45.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act
`
`and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.
`
`46.
`
`Because of the false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement, Plaintiff is
`
`threatened with irreparable harm.
`
` 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 11 of 13
`
`COUNT II
`
`Claims for Violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
`Against the Individual Defendants
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`The Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of USWS within the
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as
`
`officers and/or directors of USWS and participation in and/or awareness of the Company’s
`
`operations and/or intimate knowledge of the false statements contained in the Proxy Statement,
`
`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 false and misleading.
`
`49.
`
`Each of the Individual Defendants was provided with or had unlimited access to
`
`copies of the Proxy Statement 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
`
`them 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 and influence the particular transactions giving rise to the violations as alleged
`
`herein, and exercised the same. The Proxy Statement contains the unanimous recommendation of
`
`the Individual Defendants to approve the Proposed Transaction. They were thus directly involved
`
`in the making of the Proxy Statement.
`
`51.
`
`By virtue of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the
`
`Exchange Act.
`
` 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 12 of 13
`
`52.
`
`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) of the Exchange
`
`Act 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 defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff is threatened with irreparable harm.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment and preliminary and permanent relief,
`
`including injunctive relief, in his favor on behalf of USWS, and against defendants, 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,
`
`including the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction, unless and until defendants disclose
`
`the material information identified above which has been omitted from the Proxy Statement;
`
`B.
`
`In the event defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and
`
`setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages to Plaintiff;
`
`C.
`
`Directing the Individual Defendants to file a Proxy Statement that does not contain
`
`any untrue statements of material fact;
`
`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.
`
`
`
` 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08625 Document 1 Filed 10/11/22 Page 13 of 13
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By
`
`
`
`ACOCELLI LAW, PLLC
`
`
`/s/ Richard A. Acocelli
`Richard A. Acocelli
`33 Flying Point Road, Suite 131
`Southampton, NY 11968
`Tel: (631) 204-6187
`Email: racocelli@acocellilaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
` 13
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket