EXPLANATORY NOTE
As previously disclosed, on June 28, 2018, SYNNEX Corporation (“SYNNEX”) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 22, 2018 (as it may be further amended, modified or supplemented from time to time, the “Merger Agreement”), with Delta Merger Sub I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of SYNNEX (“Merger Sub I”), Concentrix CVG Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of SYNNEX (“Merger Sub II”), and Convergys Corporation, an Ohio corporation (“Convergys”), pursuant to which, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub I will merge with and into Convergys (the “Initial Merger”), with Convergys surviving the Initial Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of SYNNEX, followed immediately by the merger of the surviving corporation with and into Merger Sub II (the “Subsequent Merger” and together with the Initial Merger, the “Mergers”), with Merger Sub II surviving the Subsequent Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of SYNNEX.
On August 28, 2018, SYNNEX filed its joint proxy statement/prospectus (the “Proxy Statement”) to obtain stockholder approval for the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.
SYNNEX’ board of directors continues to unanimously recommend that its stockholders vote (i) FOR the approval of the issuance of shares of SYNNEX common stock in connection with the Initial Merger and (ii) FOR the adjournment of the SYNNEX special meeting if necessary to solicit additional proxies if there are not sufficient votes at the time of the special meeting, or any adjournment or postponement thereof, to approve the issuance of shares of SYNNEX common stock in connection with the Initial Merger.
On September 10, 2018, after the filing of the Proxy Statement, two lawsuits were brought by and/or on behalf of Convergys shareholders against Convergys (the “Actions”).
The first action, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit (captioned Franchi v. Ayers, et al., Case No. A 1804876) (the “Franchi Action”), was filed in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County against Convergys, individual members of Convergys’ board of directors, SYNNEX, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Mergers. The complaint filed in the Franchi Action alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i) conducting an unfair sales process that was not designed to maximize shareholder value and (ii) failing to disclose to shareholders all material information necessary to make an informed vote on the Mergers. The Franchi Action seeks, among other things, orders (i) enjoining the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Mergers, (ii) rescinding the Mergers if consummated or, alternatively, awarding unspecified rescissory damages, (iii) directing the defendants to account for all damages suffered as a result of their wrongdoing, and (iv) awarding plaintiff’s costs and attorneys’ and expert fees. A copy of the complaint is attached as Exhibit 99.1 hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
The second action, a putative class action lawsuit (captioned Zalvin v. Ayers, et al., Case No. A 1804888) (the “Zalvin Action”), was filed in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County against Convergys and individual members of Convergys’ board of directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Mergers. The complaint filed in the Zalvin Action alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i) conducting an unfair sales process that was not designed to maximize shareholder value and (ii) failing to disclose to shareholders all material information necessary to make an informed vote on the Mergers. On September 20, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The hearing on that motion is scheduled for September 26, 2018. The Zalvin Action seeks, among other things, orders (i) declaring that the Mergers were agreed to in breach of the defendants’ fiduciary duties or that the defendants aided and abetted such breaches, (ii) declaring that the defendants breached their duty of a full and fair disclosure, (iii) enjoining the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Mergers until the requested disclosures are made, (iv) awarding plaintiffs compensatory damages, and (v) awarding plaintiff’s costs and attorneys’ and expert fees. A copy of the complaint is attached as Exhibit 99.2 hereto and incorporated by reference herein.