SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14D-9/A
(RULE 14d-101)
SOLICITATION/RECOMMENDATION STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 14(d)(4)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
(Amendment No. 3)
BPW Acquisition Corp.
(Name of Subject Company)
BPW Acquisition Corp.
(Names of Person(s) Filing Statement)
Common Stock Warrants
(Title of Class of Securities)
055637110
(CUSIP Number of Class of Securities)
Gary S. Barancik
Chief Executive Officer
750 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, Connecticut 06901
(203) 653-5800
(Name, Address, and Telephone Numbers of Person Authorized to Receive Notices and
Communications on Behalf of the Person(s) Filing Statement)
WITH COPIES TO:
Matthew M. Guest, Esq. |
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz |
51 West 52nd Street |
New York, New York 10019 |
(212) 403-1000 |
¨ Check the box if the filing relates solely to preliminary communications made before the commencement of a tender offer.
SCHEDULE 14D-9
This Amendment No. 3 amends the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 10, 2010 (as amended on and prior to the date hereof, the “Statement”) by BPW Acquisition Corp. (“BPW”) and relates to the offer by The Talbots, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Talbots”), to exchange (the “Exchange Offer”) each outstanding warrant (the “BPW Warrants”) to acquire shares of common stock of BPW for shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, of Talbots (the “Talbots Common Stock”) or warrants to acquire shares of Talbots Common Stock (the “Talbots Warrants”).
Talbots has filed with the SEC Amendment No. 1 to its Registration Statement on Form S-4 (as amended and supplemented, the “Registration Statement”), relating to the Exchange Offer. The terms and conditions of the Exchange Offer, as well as descriptions of BPW and Talbots and other information required by Schedule 14D-9, are set forth in the prospectus/offer to exchange that is part of the Registration Statement, and the related Letter of Election and Transmittal, which is filed as Exhibit 99.07 to the Registration Statement (collectively, the “Offer to Exchange”).
The information incorporated herein by reference is considered to be a part of the Statement, except for any information that is superseded by information included directly in the Statement. Except as amended and supplemented as expressly set forth in this Amendment No. 3, the information set forth in the Statement remains unchanged and is hereby incorporated by reference into this Amendment No. 3.
Item 3. Past Contacts, Transactions, Negotiations and Agreements.
Item 3 of the Statement is hereby amended and supplemented as follows:
· By deleting the final two paragraphs and replacing such deleted paragraphs with the following:
On March 22, 2010, an affiliated group of hedge funds purportedly holding BPW Warrants filed an action captioned Pentwater Growth Fund, Ltd., et al. v. BPW Acquisition Corp., et al., C.A. No. 5367-VCS, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against BPW and Talbots. The complaint alleges that BPW has breached the Warrant Agreement, dated as of February 26, 2008, by and between the Company and Mellon Investor Services, LLC, related to the BPW Warrants (the “Warrant Agreement”) and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by proposing certain amendments to the Warrant Agreement. Specifically, the complaint challenges amendments proposed in the preliminar y proxy statement filed by BPW with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2010 (the “Consent Solicitation”). The complaint seeks (1) a declaration that the proposed modifications to the Warrant Agreement constitute breaches and (2) an injunction barring consummation of the Exchange Offer and the Consent Solicitation pending the Court’s ruling on the legality of the proposed amendments. On March 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) seeking preliminary relief commensurate with their requested injunction. On March 26, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. Ruling at the conclusion of the hearing on the motion, the Court found that none of the requirements for a TRO had been met: (1) that plaintiffs had not identified colorable claims; (2) that plaintiffs had identified no imminent, irreparable harm; and (3) that the balance of the equities tilted against any relief at this time.
The foregoing descriptions regarding the complaint and the motion for a TRO filed in connection with this litigation are only summaries of such complaint and motion and are qualified in their entirety by reference to such complaint and motion, which are attached hereto as Exhibit (a)(5)(C) and Exhibit (a)(5)(D), respectively, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Item 7. Purposes of the Transaction and Plans or Proposals.
Item 7 of the Statement is hereby amended and supplemented as follows:
· By deleting the final two paragraphs and replacing such deleted paragraphs with the following:
On March 22, 2010, an affiliated group of hedge funds purportedly holding BPW Warrants filed an action captioned Pentwater Growth Fund, Ltd., et al. v. BPW Acquisition Corp., et al., C.A. No. 5367-VCS, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against BPW and Talbots. The complaint alleges that BPW has breached the Warrant Agreement and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by proposing certain amendments to the Warrant Agreement. Specifically, the complaint challenges the Consent Solicitation. The complaint seeks (1) a declaration that the proposed modifications to the Warrant Agreement constitute breaches and (2) an injunction barring consummation of the Exchange Offer and the Consent Solicitation pending the Court’s ruling on the legality of the proposed amendments. On March 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) seeking preliminary relief commensurate with their requested injunction. On March 26, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. Ruling at the conclusion of the hearing on the motion, the Court found that none of the requirements for a TRO had been met: (1) that plaintiffs had not identified colorable claims; (2) that pl aintiffs had identified no imminent, irreparable harm; and (3) that the balance of the equities tilted against any relief at this time.