SUPPLEMENT TO THE PROXY STATEMENT FOR
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
TO BE HELD JANUARY 16, 2019
These additional definitive materials are being filed to update and supplement the proxy statement (the “proxy statement”) filed by Red Hat, Inc. (“Red Hat”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) as a definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A, FileNo. 001-33162, on December 12, 2018 and mailed by Red Hat to its stockholders commencing on December 13, 2018. The information contained on this Schedule 14A is incorporated by reference into the proxy statement. Terms used in these additional definitive materials, but not otherwise defined, shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the proxy statement.
The supplemental information contained in these additional definitive materials should be read in conjunction with the proxy statement, which should be read in its entirety. To the extent that information in these additional definitive materials differs from or updates information contained in the proxy statement, the information in these additional definitive materials shall supersede or supplement the information in the proxy statement. The information contained in this supplement speaks only as of January 4, 2019, unless the information specifically indicates that another date applies.
If you have not already submitted a proxy for use at the Red Hat special meeting since the distribution of the proxy statement, you are urged to do so promptly. These additional definitive materials do not affect the validity of any proxy card or voting instructions that Red Hat stockholders may have previously received or delivered following the distribution of the proxy statement.No action is required by any Red Hat stockholder who has previously delivered a proxy or voting instructions following the distribution of the proxy statement and who does not wish to revoke or change that proxy or voting instructions.
Three putative class action complaints were filed against Red Hat and its board of directors relating to the Merger with IBM. As of January 4, 2019, we received the following complaints, each filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware: (i) Charles Orgel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc., James M. Whitehurst, Narendra K. Gupta, Sohaib Abbasi, W. Steve Albrecht, Charlene T. Begley, Kimberly L. Hammonds, William S. Kaiser, Kevin M. Murai and Alfred W. Zollar (filed December 18, 2018) (the “Orgel Action”), (ii) Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc., James M. Whitehurst, Narendra K. Gupta, Sohaib Abbasi, Steve Albrecht, Charlene Begley, Kim Hammonds, William S. Kaiser, Kevin M. Murai and Alfred W. Zollar (filed December 19, 2018) (the “Kent Action”) and (iii) Christopher Nunn Bishop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc., James M. Whitehurst, Narendra K. Gupta, Sohaib Abbasi, Steve Albrecht, Charlene Begley, Kim Hammonds, William S. Kaiser, Kevin M. Murai and Alfred W. Zollar (filed December 21, 2018) (the “Bishop Action” and together with the Orgel Action and the Kent Action, the “Actions”). The complaints allege that the proxy statement omits purportedly material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, rendering the proxy statement false and misleading. Red Hat believes the Actions are without merit.
While Red Hat believes that the disclosures set forth in the proxy statement comply fully with applicable law, to moot plaintiffs’ disclosure claims, to avoid nuisance, potential expense and delay and to provide additional information to our stockholders, Red Hat has determined to voluntarily supplement the proxy statement with the below disclosures.
Nothing in the below supplemental disclosure shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable law of any of the disclosure set forth herein or in the proxy statement. To the contrary, Red Hat denies all allegations in the Actions that any additional disclosures was or is required.