Parris H. Holmes, Jr. (former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company) served on the Board of Princeton from September 1998 until March 2004. Mr. Holmes served as Chairman of the Board of Princeton from January 2002 until December 2002. David P. Tusa (former Chief Financial Officer of the Company) served as a member of the Board of Princeton from August 2001 until June 2002.
According to public filings, Mr. Holmes has been a member of the board of directors of Sharps Compliance Corp. (“Sharps”), an entity in which the Company formerly had an investment, since July 1998. Mr. Tusa was appointed Chief Financial Officer of Sharps in February 2003. A former member of the Company’s board of directors, Lee Cooke, served on the board of directors of Sharps from March 1992 until November 2004.
In August 2003, the Company issued 435,484 shares of its common stock to Mr. Holmes in exchange for a salary reduction of $135,000 for the employment period of October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004. These shares were issued under the New Century Equity Holdings Corp. 1996 Employee Comprehensive Stock Plan, which allows for this type of issuance without any material amendments.
In November 2001, the Company entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (“Employment Agreement”) with Mr. Holmes. As part of the Employment Agreement, the Company entered into a Split-Dollar Life Insurance Agreement (“Insurance Agreement”) with a trust beneficially owned by Mr. Holmes pursuant to which the Company paid the annual insurance premium of approximately $172,000. The underlying life insurance policy had a face value of $4,500,000 and required remaining annual premium payments through March 2012, totaling $1,500,000. In December 2003, Mr. Holmes and the Company agreed to amend the Employment Agreement and terminate the provisions of the Employment Agreement related to the Insurance Agreement in exchange for payments by the Company to, and on behalf of, Mr. Holmes totaling approximately $700,000 in cash. Accordingly, the Company assigned to Mr. Holmes, and Mr. Holmes assumed, all future obligations and benefits related to the Insurance Agreement. Mr. Holmes released and discharged the Company from any further obligation to provide or fund any life insurance for the benefit of Mr. Holmes, including the Insurance Agreement. The entire $700,000 was included in general and administrative expenses during the year ended December 31, 2003. In December 2003, $200,000 of the total $700,000 was paid. The remaining $500,000 was accrued at December 31, 2003 and paid in January 2004. In conjunction with the Insurance Agreement, the Company relinquished its rights under two other split-dollar life insurance policies previously entered into with Mr. Holmes. All premiums had been paid under the two policies prior to 2004. The Company paid approximately $3,800 on behalf of Mr. Holmes in connection with the transfer of rights to Mr. Holmes.
Prior to Newcastle obtaining control of the Company, during the quarter ended June 30, 2004, the Company sold certain office furniture to Mr. Holmes for approximately $7,000 and provided Mr. Holmes with title to the automobile that had been furnished to him at no cost by the Company. The Company had purchased the office furniture for approximately $28,000 during the period October 1994 through April 2003 and the furniture had a book value of $4,000. Pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, Mr. Holmes was provided with an
automobile. The automobile was acquired by the Company for $75,000 in 2000. At the time of transfer, the net book value of the automobile was zero and the fair market value was $20,000. In accordance with the terms of Mr. Holmes’ employment agreement, the income taxes incurred by Mr. Holmes as a result of the transfer of title to him were borne by the Company.
The Company paid Mr. Holmes approximately $600,000 on June 2, 2004, purportedly as a result of a restricted stock grant as described below. In April 2000, the board of directors of the Company approved a restricted stock grant to Mr. Holmes. The restricted stock grant consisted of 400,000 shares of Princeton common stock and was modified in June 2001 to provide for certain anti-dilution and ratchet protections. The restricted stock grant vested on April 30, 2003. The Company expensed the fair market value of the restricted stock grant over the three-year period ended April 30, 2003. The Company recognized $150,000 during the year ended December 31, 2003, as compensation expense related to the stock grant. The Company has commenced an investigation of various transactions involving former management, including, among other things, the $600,000 payment.
In June 2004, when Newcastle acquired the Series A Preferred Stock, Mark Schwarz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Newcastle Management, Steven J. Pully, President of Newcastle Management, and John Murray, Chief Financial Officer of Newcastle Management, assumed positions as Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company. Mr. Pully receives an annual salary of $150,000 as Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Newcastle Management is the general partner of Newcastle, which owns 4,807,692 shares of Series A Preferred Stock and 150,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company.
The Company’s corporate headquarters are currently located at 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1110, Dallas, Texas 75201, which are also the offices of Newcastle Management. Pursuant to an oral agreement, the Company currently occupies a portion of Newcastle Management’s space on a month-to-month basis at no charge. The Company also receives accounting and administrative services from employees of Newcastle Management at no charge.
PROCEDURES FOR CONTACTING DIRECTORS
The Board of Directors has established a process for stockholders to send communications to the Board of Directors. Stockholders may communicate with the Board of Directors generally or a specific director at any time by writing to: Corporate Secretary, New Century Equity Holdings Corp., 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1110, Dallas, Texas 75201. The Corporate Secretary reviews all messages received, and forwards any message that reasonably appears to be a communication from a stockholder about a matter of stockholder interest that is intended for communication to the Board of Directors. Communications are sent as soon as practicable to the director to whom they are addressed, or if addressed to the Board of Directors generally, to the Chairman of the Board. Because other appropriate avenues of communication exist for matters that are not of stockholder interest, such as general business complaints or employee grievances, communications that do not relate to matters of stockholder interest are not forwarded to the Board of Directors. The Corporate Secretary has the right, but not the obligation, to forward such other communications to appropriate channels within the Company.
23
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On August 11, 2004, Craig Davis, allegedly a stockholder of the Company, filed the Complaint in the Chancery Court of New Castle County, Delaware. The Complaint asserts direct claims, and also derivative claims on the Company’s behalf, against five former and three current directors of the Company. The individual defendants named in the Complaint are Parris H. Holmes, Jr., C. Lee Cooke, Jr., Justin L. Ferrero, Gary D. Becker, J. Stephen Barley, Stephen M. Wagner, Mark E. Schwarz and Steven J. Pully. The Company is a nominal defendant. Mr. Davis alleges in the Complaint that different director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company. The allegations involve, among other things, transactions with, and payments to, Mr. Holmes, a former executive officer and director, and whether the Company operated as an unregistered investment company in violation of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Mr. Davis seeks the appointment of a receiver for the Company under Section 226(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law and other remedies.
The Company and certain of the defendants responded to the Complaint by filing a motion to dismiss or stay the action on October 18, 2004, and on November 3, 2004, filed a memorandum of law in support of such positions. The motion to dismiss filed by the Company and various defendants was heard by the Chancery Court of New Castle County, Delaware on January 18, 2005. The court denied the motion to dismiss. On May 6, 2005, the Company and certain of the defendants filed a response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for receiver. Mediation among parties named in the Complaint took place in Wilmington, Delaware on May 13, 2005. On May 31, 2005, Mr. Davis filed an amendment to the Complaint to include James Risher, a current director, and Newcastle as additional defendants. On July 8, 2005, the Company and certain defendants filed a supplemental response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for appointment of receiver.
The Company is currently funding legal and professional fees of the defendants pursuant to indemnification arrangements that were in place during the respective terms of each of the defendants. The Company has met the $500,000 deductible as stipulated in the Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy. The directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy carries a maximum coverage limit of $5,000,000. As of December 31, 2005, the Company has recorded a receivable from the insurance carrier of approximately $1,522,000 for reimbursement of legal and professional fees incurred in excess of the policy deductible, in accordance with the provisions of the insurance policy. The Company has not received any reimbursement from the insurance carrier and continues to have ongoing discussions with the insurance carrier regarding reimbursement under the provisions of the policy. Nonpayment of the claim for reimbursement of legal and professional fees could have a material adverse effect on the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. The Company intends to vigorously seek enforcement of its rights under the policy.
On October 27, 2004, the Board of Directors appointed Messrs. Pully, Risher and Schwarz to a special litigation committee to investigate the claims of the plaintiff. Prior to the filing of the Complaint, the Company had commenced an investigation of various transactions involving former management, including, among other things, the payment of approximately $600,000 to Mr. Holmes in connection with a restricted stock agreement and the reimbursement of various expenses involving meals and entertainment, travel and other reimbursed expenses.
24
As part of the investigative work commenced by the Company prior to the filing of the Complaint, the Company sought reimbursement from Mr. Holmes for various amounts paid to him. The Company and Mr. Holmes were unable to agree on the amount that Mr. Holmes should reimburse the Company.
The Company had been notified by counsel to both Mr. Holmes and Mr. Tusa that each of Messrs. Holmes and Tusa believed that approximately $60,000 and $34,000, respectively, are owed to each of them under their respective consulting agreements. In addition to notifying both Messrs. Holmes and Tusa that their consulting services were not required and that no obligation therefore existed under their respective agreements, both had also been notified that the Company is investigating various transactions, including, among other things, the payment of approximately $600,000 to Mr. Holmes in connection with a restricted stock agreement and the reimbursement of various expenses involving meals and entertainment, travel and other reimbursed expenses. The Company disputes that any additional amounts are owed under the consulting agreements.
On April 13, 2006, the Company announced that it reached an agreement with all of the parties to the litigation to settle the lawsuit and all claims relating thereto. The principal terms of the settlement include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) the Company’s insurance carrier will contribute to a settlement fund in connection with the settlement and also reimburse the Company for certain legal and professional fees, which will also be contributed to the settlement fund, (b) Mr. Holmes will contribute $150,000 to the settlement fund, (c) counsel for the plaintiff in the litigation has requested payment of $935,000 for fees and expenses relating to the litigation from the settlement fund and the defendants in the lawsuit have agreed not to object to the award of such fees and expenses, (d) the balance in the settlement fund after payment of legal fees to counsel for the plaintiff is estimated to be approximately $2.26 million, which amount will be distributed to stockholders of the Company after the final approval of the settlement by the Delaware Chancery Court. A record date will be established following approval of the settlement by the Delaware Chancery Court. Stockholders of the Company as of the record date will be entitled to participate in the distribution from the settlement fund, however, the former directors of the Company who were parties to the settlement will not be entitled to receive any distributions from the settlement fund. Approval of the settlement by the Delaware Chancery Court is expected to take two to four months.
Pursuant to the transaction which resulted in Newcastle obtaining control of the Company, the Company agreed to indemnify Newcastle from any liability, loss or damage, together with all costs and expenses related thereto that the Company may suffer which arises out of affairs of the Company, its board of directors or employees prior to the transaction. The Company’s obligation to indemnify may be satisfied at the option of the purchaser by issuing additional Series A Preferred Stock to the purchaser, modifying the conversion price of the Series A Preferred Stock, a payment of cash or a redemption of Series A Preferred Stock or a combination of the foregoing. The Company and the purchaser have not yet determined whether events that have arisen since the closing will trigger the indemnity provisions.
On December 12, 2005, the Company received a letter from the SEC, based on a review of the Company’s Form 10-K filed for the year ended December 31, 2004, requesting that the Company provide a written explanation as to whether the Company is an “investment company”
25
(as such term is defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940). The Company provided a written response to the SEC, dated January 12, 2005, stating the reasons why it believes it is not an “investment company”. The Company continues to provide certain confirmatory information requested by the SEC.
During February 2006, the Company entered into an agreement with a former employee to settle a dispute over a severance agreement that the employee had entered into with the Company. The severance agreement, which was executed by former management, provided for a payment of approximately $98,000 upon the occurrence of certain events. The Company paid approximately $85,000 to settle all claims associated with the severance agreement.
PROPOSALS FOR THE 2007 ANNUAL MEETING
Requirements for Stockholder Proposals to be Considered for Inclusion in the Company’s Proxy Materials
Stockholder proposals submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-8 of the Exchange Act (“Rule 14a-8”), and intended to be presented at the Company’s 2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, must be received by the Company and addressed to the Corporate Secretary at 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1110, Dallas, Texas 75201, no later than February 2, 2007 to be considered for inclusion in the Company’s proxy materials for that meeting. After December 29, 2006, notice to the Company of a stockholder proposal will be considered untimely and the person named in proxies solicited by the Board of Directors of the Company for its 2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders may exercise discretionary authority voting power with respect to any such proposal.
Requirements for Stockholder Proposals Outside the Scope of Rule 14a-8
A stockholder may present a proposal for consideration at the 2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders by providing written notice in a timely manner to the Secretary of the Company setting forth the following information: a brief description of the proposal to be brought before the annual meeting and the reasons for conducting such business at the annual meeting; the name and address of the stockholder making the proposal; the class and number of shares of the Company which are beneficially owned by the stockholder and a representation that the stockholder intends to appear in person or by proxy at the meeting to introduce the proposal or proposals specified in the notice. To be timely, notice must be received by the Company (a) in the case of an annual meeting, not less than 120 days prior to the date of the Company’s proxy materials for the previous year’s annual meeting, or (b) in the case of a special meeting, not less than the close of business on the seventh day following the day on which notice of such meeting is first given to stockholders. No business shall be conducted at a meeting except business brought before the annual meeting in accordance with the procedures set forth above. If the Chairman or other officer presiding at a meeting determines that the stockholder proposal was not properly brought before such meeting, such proposal will not be introduced at such meeting.
Requirements for Stockholder Nominations of Directors
The advance notification procedures that stockholders must follow in order to nominate directors (the “Nomination Procedure”), set forth in Section 8.3 of the Charter and Section 3.16
26
of the By-Laws, provides that only persons who are nominated by or at the direction of the Board of Directors, or by a stockholder who has given timely prior written notice to the Secretary of the Company prior to the meeting at which directors are to be elected will be eligible for election as directors. To be timely, notice must be received by the Company (a) in the case of an annual meeting, not less than 90 days prior to the annual meeting, or (b) in the case of a special meeting, not later than the seventh day following the day on which notice of such meeting is first given to stockholders.
Under the Nomination Procedure, notice to the Company from a stockholder who proposes to nominate a person or persons at a meeting for election as a director must contain certain information, including the name and address of the stockholder who intends to make the nomination and the person to be nominated, a representation that the stockholder is a holder of record of stock of the Company entitled to vote at such meeting and intends to appear in person or by proxy to nominate the person, a description of all arrangements or understandings between the stockholder and each nominee and any other person pursuant to which the nomination is to be made, such other information regarding each nominee as would be required to be included in a proxy statement filed pursuant to the Proxy Rules of the SEC had the nominee been nominated by the Board of Directors and the consent of such nominee to serve as a director if so elected. If the Chairman presiding at the meeting determines that a person was not nominated in accordance with the Nomination Procedure, such person will not be eligible for election as a director.
ANNUAL REPORT
Any stockholder of the Company may obtain without charge a copy of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (without exhibits), including the Company’s certified financial statements, as filed with the SEC, by writing to the Corporate Secretary, New Century Equity Holdings Corp., 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1110, Dallas Texas 75201.
OTHER MATTERS
As of the date of this Proxy Statement, management does not intend to present any other items of business and is not aware of any matters to be presented for action at the Annual Meeting other than those described above. However, if any other matters should come before the Annual Meeting, it is the intention of the persons named as proxies in the accompanying Proxy Card to vote in accordance with their best judgment on such matters.
Expenses of Solicitation
The cost of preparing, assembling and mailing this Proxy Statement is being paid by the Company. In addition to solicitation by mail, Company directors, officers and employees may solicit proxies by telephone or other means of communication. Arrangements will also be made with brokerage firms and other custodians, nominees and fiduciaries that hold the voting securities of record for the forwarding of solicitation materials to the beneficial owners thereof. The Company will reimburse such brokers, custodians, nominees and fiduciaries for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by them in connection therewith.
27
By order of the Board of Directors,
Steven J. Pully
Secretary
April 28, 2006
28
THIS PROXY IS SOLICITED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NEW CENTURY EQUITY HOLDINGS CORP.
Proxy Card for Holders of Common Stock
Annual Meeting of Stockholders
June 2, 2006
The undersigned, a stockholder of New Century Equity Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby appoint Mark E. Schwarz and Steven J. Pully, and each of them, the true and lawful attorneys and proxies with full power of substitution, for and in the name, place and stead of the undersigned, to vote all of the shares of Common Stock of the Company which the undersigned would be entitled to vote if personally present at the 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Company to be held at the offices of the Company located at 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1110, Dallas, Texas, on June 2, 2006 at 10:00 a.m., local time, or at any adjournment or adjournments thereof.
The undersigned hereby instructs said proxies or their substitutes:
RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS:
To ratify the appointment of Burton McCumber & Cortez, L.L.P. as the independent public accountants of the Company for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006.
FOR[ ] | AGAINST [ ] | ABSTAIN[ ] |
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY:
In their discretion, the proxies are authorized to vote upon such other and further business as may properly come before the meeting.
THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY DIRECTIONS HEREINBEFORE GIVEN. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED FOR THE RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS.
The undersigned hereby revokes any proxy or proxies heretofore given, and ratifies and confirms that all the proxies appointed hereby, or any of them, or their substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
Dated: _______________________, 2006
_____________________________ (L.S.)
_____________________________ (L.S.)
Signature(s)
NOTE: Please sign exactly as your name or names appear hereon. When signing as attorney, executor, administrator, trustee or guardian, please indicate the capacity in which signing. When signing as joint tenants, all parties in the joint tenancy must sign. When a proxy is given by a corporation, it should be signed with full corporate name by a duly authorized officer.
Please mark, date, sign and mail this proxy in the envelope provided for this purpose. No postage is required if mailed in the United States.