“Legal Proceedings.
On March 7, 2022, a putative stockholder lawsuit captioned Shiva Stein v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-1914 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 7, 2022), was filed against Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company and members of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company Board in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 8, 2022, a putative stockholder lawsuit captioned Ryan O’Dell v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01932 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 8, 2022), was filed against Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company and members of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company Board in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 10, 2022, a putative stockholder lawsuit captioned Jeffrey D. Justice, II v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01320-RPK-LB (E.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 10, 2022), was filed against Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company and members of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company Board in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On March 10, 2022, a putative stockholder lawsuit captioned Matthew Whitfield v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00916-MSG (E.D. Pa. filed Mar. 10, 2022), was filed against Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company and members of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company Board in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On March 12, 2022, a putative stockholder lawsuit captioned Amir Williams v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-1374 (E.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 12, 2022), was filed against Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company and members of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company Board in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On March 16, 2022, a putative stockholder lawsuit captioned Austin Frieman v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02166 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 16, 2022), was filed against Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company and members of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company Board in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. All six lawsuits allege Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, claiming the Schedule 14D-9 omits certain material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed decision whether to tender their shares, with respect to the financial data, inputs and assumptions underlying the Financial Advisor’s opinion, and various details in the section of the Schedule 14D-9 entitled “Item 4. The Solicitation or Recommendation—Background of the Offer.” As relief, plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the Transactions from closing until additional allegedly material information is disclosed or, in the alternative, rescission (or rescissory damages) if the Transactions close, as well as an award of their costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, damages, and for Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company to file a solicitation statement that does not omit materially information. The defendants believe that plaintiffs’ allegations lack merit.”
The information set forth in the Offer to Purchase under “The Tender Offer—Section 15—Certain Legal Matters; Regulatory Approval” and Items 1 through 9 and Item 11 of this Schedule TO, to the extent such Items incorporate by reference such information in the Offer to Purchase, is hereby amended and supplemented by adding the following language as the last paragraph under the subheading “Antitrust Compliance” under “The Tender Offer—Section 15—Certain Legal Matters; Regulatory Approvals” of the Offer to Purchase:
“At 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on March 15, 2022, the applicable waiting period under the HSR Act with respect to the purchase of Company Shares pursuant to the Offer expired.”