Litigation Relating to the Merger
As described in the Proxy Statement, on July 22, 2019, a stockholder complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against us and the individual members of our Board, captioned Stein v. Shutterfly, Inc., et al., CaseNo. 4:19-cv-04203 (the “Stein Complaint”). On July 23, 2019, a stockholder complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against us and the individual members of our Board, captioned Spurlock v. Shutterfly, Inc., et al., CaseNo. 1:19-cv-06836 (the “Spurlock Complaint”). On July 26, 2019, a putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, against us and the individual members of our Board, captioned Wolf v. Shutterfly, Inc. et al., CaseNo. 1:19-cv-01387 (the “Wolf Complaint”). On July 29, 2019, a putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against us and individual members of our Board, captioned Gordon v. Shutterfly, Inc., et al., CaseNo. 3:19-cv-04335 (the “Gordon Complaint” and collectively with the Stein Complaint, Spurlock Complaint and Wolf Complaint, the “Federal Court Complaints”). Each of the Federal Court Complaints asserts that defendants violated Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and certain rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by making untrue statements of material fact and omitting certain material facts related to the contemplated merger in the proxy statement.
Subsequent to the filing of the Proxy Statement, on July 31, 2019, another putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against us and the individual members of our Board, captionedCheung v. Shutterfly, Inc. et al., Case No.19-CIV-04419. That case has since been voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff. On August 5, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captionedCheung v. Shutterfly, Inc. et al., Case No.3:19-cv-04540 (the “Federal Cheung Complaint”). Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of that case.
The Stockholder Complaints seek, among other things, an order enjoining defendants from consummating the merger, money damages and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.
We believe that the claims asserted in the Stockholder Complaints are without merit and deny the allegations in each of those actions. However, in��light of the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and to furnish further information to stockholders, we are providing certain additional disclosures (“Supplemental Disclosures”) in this supplement to the Proxy Statement. The Supplemental Disclosures should not be regarded as an indication that we, Apollo (as defined below) or our or their respective affiliates, officers, directors or other representatives, or any recipient of this information, considered or now considers the information contained in the Supplemental Disclosures to be material; rather, we believe that the Proxy Statement disclosed all necessary information and deny that any additional disclosures are or were required under any federal or state law. Photo Holdings Merger Sub, Inc. and Newco are affiliates of certain funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Management IX, L.P., which we refer to as Apollo Management. We refer to Apollo Management, acting on behalf of the Apollo Guarantors (as defined below) as “Apollo.”
Supplemental Disclosures
We are providing certain disclosures that supplement those contained in the Proxy Statement. The supplemental information provided below should be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement, which we urge you to read in its entirety.