As previously announced, on August 1, 2021 (Pacific Daylight Time) / August 2, 2021 (Australian Eastern Standard Time), Square, Inc. (“Square”), Lanai (AU) 2 Pty Ltd, an Australian proprietary company limited by shares and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Square (“Lanai”), and Afterpay Limited, an Australian public company limited by shares and listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (“Afterpay”), entered into a Scheme Implementation Deed pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Square will acquire (indirectly through Lanai) all Afterpay ordinary shares pursuant to a court-approved scheme of arrangement under Part 5.1 of Australia’s Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Transaction”). On October 5, 2021, Square filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) a definitive proxy statement (the “Definitive Proxy Statement”) with respect to the special meeting of Square stockholders scheduled to be held on November 3, 2021 in connection with the Transaction (the “Special Meeting”).
Litigation Related to the Transaction
In connection with the Transaction, eight lawsuits were filed between October 13 and October 25, 2021 against one or more of Square and the directors of Square (collectively, the “Defendants”). One complaint, Bushansky v. Square, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 3:21-cv-08013 (the “Bushansky Complaint”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; one complaint, Duenas v. Square, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 1:21-cv-05822 (the “Duenas Complaint”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; three complaints, Fetting v. Square, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 1:21-cv-08589 (the “Fetting Complaint”), Dunlap v. Square, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 1:21-cv-08612 and Franchi v. Square, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 1:21-cv-08673 (the “Franchi Complaint”), were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; two complaints, Rosenblatt v. Square, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01471 and Sabatini v. Square, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01482 (the “Sabatini Complaint”), were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; and one complaint, Shumacher v. Square, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 2:21-cv-04665, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the Defendants disseminated a false or misleading proxy statement regarding the Transaction in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The complaints allege (1) that the Definitive Proxy Statement filed by Square omitted or misrepresented material information regarding the financial valuation analyses performed by Square’s financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion, and in the cases of the Bushansky Complaint, the Duenas Complaint, the Fetting Complaint and the Sabatini Complaint, the deliberations of Square’s board of directors leading up to the Transaction, as well as in the cases of the Duenas Complaint, the Fetting Complaint and the Franchi Complaint, potential conflicts of interest involving Square’s financial advisor, and (2) that disclosure of material information is necessary for Square’s stockholders to make an informed decision regarding whether to vote in favor of the issuance of shares of Square Class A common stock in connection with the Transaction. The complaints further allege that Square’s directors are liable for alleged violations as “controlling persons” of Square under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Additionally, two purported Square stockholders sent demand letters alleging similar purported insufficiencies in the disclosures in the Definitive Proxy Statement on October 8 and October 22, 2021 respectively (such letters, the “Demand Letters” and together with the lawsuits, the “Matters”).
Among other relief, the complaints generally seek injunctive relief, including enjoining the Transaction unless and until the Defendants disclose the allegedly omitted material information and rescinding the Transaction in the event the Defendants consummate the Transaction (or awarding rescissory damages), declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, damages, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.
Square believes that the claims asserted in the Matters are without merit and that no further disclosure is required under applicable law. However, in order to avoid the risk of the Matters delaying or adversely affecting the Transaction and to minimize the costs, risks, and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Square has determined to voluntarily supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement as described in this Current Report on Form 8-K. Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, Square specifically denies all allegations in the Matters that any additional disclosure was or is required.