BACKGROUND OF THIS PROXY SOLICITATION
Stadium Capital has been a large stockholder in the Company for more than eight years. Stadium Capital is the Company’s largest stockholder and the beneficial owner of an aggregate of 2,513,220 shares of Common Stock, representing over 11% of the outstanding Common Stock.
In 2011, Stadium Capital began discussions with the Company regarding the composition of the Board, and specifically about having a representative of Stadium Capital join the Board. These discussions resulted in Mr. DeMarco’s appointment to the Board.
At the 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, Stadium Capital withheld its votes from the Company’s director nominees due to concerns about governance practices and the composition of the Board.
In connection with a regularly-scheduled meeting of the Board in October 2014, Mr. DeMarco proposed that the Company (1) repeal the classified board; (2) adopt majority voting in director elections; and (3) eliminate the supermajority vote requirements in the Company’s charter and bylaws. In response, the Board expressed a willingness to discuss governance changes in February 2015. The Board knew that if it did not consider Mr. DeMarco’s proposals until February 2015, the Rule 14a-8 deadline, which was January 1, 2015, would have passed and stockholders would not be able to make Rule 14a-8 proposals in response to the Board’s decisions.
On December 18, 2014, Stadium Capital submitted to the Company a proposal urging the Board to take all necessary steps (other than any steps that must be taken by the stockholders) to eliminate the classification of the Board and to require that all directors elected after the Annual Meeting be elected on an annual basis. For additional information, see the section of this proxy statement captioned “Proposal 6 — Stockholder Proposal Requesting a Declassified Board.” Stadium Capital also sent a letter to the Board regarding its views on the Company’s governance practices and the reasons for the submission of the stockholder proposal.
On January 19, 2015, the Board formed a special committee (the “Special Committee”) to, among other things, consider the stockholder proposal submitted by Stadium Capital. The Special Committee has the full authority to take “all actions” and make all decisions that the “full Board would be empowered to take or make.” Mr. DeMarco was the only director that the Board chose to exclude from the Special Committee.
On January 21, 2015, Mr. DeMarco sent a letter to Steven G. Miller, the Company’s Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, concerning the formation of the Special Committee. In the letter, Mr. DeMarco stated that there was no conflict of interest between Stadium Capital and the other non-management stockholders of the Company. The letter further states that the Board ignored the potential conflicts of other directors and deliberately delegated sweeping power to the Special Committee in an overly broad manner, in order to potentially exclude Mr. DeMarco from all Board business.
On January 30, 2015, Mr. Miller sent Mr. DeMarco a letter providing the Special Committee’s view on the appropriateness of the Special Committee and the possibility of a conflict between Mr. DeMarco, due to his affiliation with Stadium Capital, and other stockholders.
On February 4, 2015, Mr. DeMarco sent a letter to Mr. Miller. The letter reiterates that there is no conflict between Stadium Capital and the other non-management stockholders of the Company. The letter also described the conflicts of other directors that were not taken into account in connection with the formation of the Special Committee, including that one of the directors, G. Michael Brown, is a partner of a law firm to which the Company’s management has directed millions of dollars in legal fees over the last several years.
On March 17, 2015, SCP delivered to the Company a formal notice of its nomination of the Nominees, as required by the Bylaws. Stadium Capital also issued a press release concerning its nomination of the Nominees.
On March 31, 2015, and following discussions with certain members of the Board, including Mr. Miller, Mr. DeMarco, on behalf of Stadium Capital, sent a proposal to the Board to resolve the proxy contest. Stadium Capital’s proposal provided for, among other things, certain changes in the composition of the Board and implementation of the governance changes that Mr. DeMarco discussed with the Board in October 2014. After discussion, the Company and Stadium Capital were not able to reach agreement.
On April 2, 2015, the Company sent a proposal to Stadium Capital to resolve the proxy contest. The Company’s proposal provided for, among other things, (1) the Board’s nominees for director at the Annual Meeting including Mr. DeMarco and a nominee chosen by the Board’s Nominating and Corporate