On June 6, 2021, U.S. Concrete, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“U.S. Concrete” or the “Company”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with Vulcan Materials Company, a New Jersey corporation (“Vulcan”) and Grizzly Merger Sub I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vulcan (“Grizzly Merger Sub”) pursuant to which Grizzly Merger Sub will merge with and into U.S. Concrete (the “Merger”), with U.S. Concrete surviving the Merger and becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vulcan. On July 1, 2021, U.S. Concrete filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) its preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the “Preliminary Proxy Statement”) and on July 13, 2021, U.S. Concrete filed with the SEC its definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A relating to the special meeting of stockholders of the Company scheduled to be held on August 16, 2021 (the “Definitive Proxy Statement”) to, among other things, vote on a proposal to adopt and approve the Merger Agreement.
With this filing, the Company is hereby supplementing its disclosure in the Definitive Proxy Statement in connection with litigation brought by certain purported stockholders of the Company, which is described below.
Stockholder Litigation
Since the initial filing of the Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A, eleven actions (collectively, the “U.S. Concrete Stockholder Actions”) have been filed in federal courts in Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania by purported stockholders of the Company in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement: Stein v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2021); Waterman v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2021); Clark v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., et al. (D. Del July 9, 2021) (the “Clark Action”); Harris v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2021); Siddall v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., et al. (D.N.J. July 13, 2021); Whitfield v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., et al (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2021); Murphy v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2021); Kent v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., et al. (D.N.J. July 27, 2021) (the “Kent Action”); Wilhelm v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., et al. (D. Del July 28, 2021) (the “Wilhelm Action”); Brave v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., et al. (D.N.J. July 30, 2021) (the “Brave Action”) and Beauregard v. U.S. Concrete, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2021) (the “Beauregard Action”). Each of the U.S. Concrete Stockholder Actions names the Company and its directors as defendants, and the Clark Action names former Company director William J. Sandbrook as an additional defendant. Each of the U.S. Concrete Stockholder Actions alleges, among other things, that the Preliminary Proxy Statement, or, in the case of the Kent Action, Wilhelm Action, Brave Action and Beauregard Action, the Definitive Proxy Statement, on Schedule 14A is false and misleading and/or omits material information relating to the Company’s financial forecasts and financial analyses conducted by the Company’s financial advisors. Certain of the U.S. Concrete Stockholder Actions further allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose certain information in the Definitive Proxy Statement relating to the sales process and alleged conflicts of interests for management, financial projections for the Company provided to the Company’s financial advisors, and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions of the Company’s financial advisors. The Clark Action further alleges that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger Agreement through an unfair process and for inadequate consideration. The plaintiffs in the U.S. Concrete Stockholder Actions, among other things, seek to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses and, in certain instances, damages in an unspecified amount.
While the Company believes that the disclosures set forth in the Preliminary Proxy Statement and in the Definitive Proxy Statement comply fully with all applicable law and denies the allegations in the pending actions described above, in order to moot the plaintiffs’ disclosure claims, avoid nuisance and possible expense and business delays, and provide additional information to its stockholders, the Company has determined voluntarily to supplement certain disclosures in the Definitive Proxy Statement related to the plaintiffs’ claims with the supplemental disclosures set forth below (the “Supplemental Disclosures”). These Supplemental Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the rest of the Definitive Proxy Statement, which is available at the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov, or from the Company’s website at https://www.us-concrete.com and which we urge you to read in its entirety. Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal merit, necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, the Company and the other named defendants specifically deny all allegations in the complaints, including the allegations that any additional disclosure was or is required or material.
To the extent that the information set forth herein differs from or updates information contained in the Definitive Proxy Statement, the information set forth herein shall supersede or supplement the information in the Definitive Proxy Statement. All references to sections and subsections herein are references to the corresponding sections or subsections in the Definitive Proxy Statement, all page references are to pages in the Definitive Proxy Statement, and terms used herein, unless otherwise defined, have the meanings set forth in the Definitive Proxy Statement.