As previously disclosed, on October 20, 2020, Parsley Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Parsley”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among Pioneer Natural Resources Company, a Delaware corporation (“Pioneer”), Pearl First Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pioneer (“Merger Sub Inc.”), Pearl Second Merger Sub LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pioneer (“Merger Sub LLC”), Pearl Opco Merger Sub LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pioneer (“Opco Merger Sub LLC”), Parsley and Parsley Energy, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Opco LLC”). The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things, (i) the merger of Merger Sub Inc. into Parsley (the “First Parsley Merger”), with Parsley continuing as the surviving corporation (the “Surviving Corporation”), (ii) simultaneously with the First Parsley Merger, the merger of Opco Merger Sub LLC into Opco LLC (the “Opco Merger”), with Opco LLC continuing as the surviving company, and (iii) immediately following the First Parsley Merger and the Opco Merger, the merger of the Surviving Corporation into Merger Sub LLC (together with the First Parsley Merger and the Opco Merger, the “Mergers”), with Merger Sub LLC continuing as the surviving entity and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pioneer. As a result of the Mergers, Parsley will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Pioneer. On December 4, 2020, Parsley and Pioneer filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) a definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus for the solicitation of proxies in connection with the special meetings of Parsley’s stockholders and Pioneer’s stockholders, each to be held on January 12, 2021, to vote upon, among other things, matters necessary to complete the Mergers (the “Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus”).
Litigation Related to the Mergers
Following the filing of the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus on November 23, 2020 (the “Preliminary Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus”), 12 complaints have been filed with respect to the Mergers as of January 5, 2021: three in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned as Wang v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-01600 (D. Del.) (the “Wang Action”), Horde v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-1642 (D. Del.) (the “Horde Action”), and Smith v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-01649 (D. Del.) (the “Smith Action”); seven in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned as Neal v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-10355 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Neal Action”), Reyna v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-10453 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Reyna Action”), Poole v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-10456 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Poole Action”), Hutson v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-105049 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Hutson Action”), Bushansky v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-10635 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Bushansky Action”), Gebhardt v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-10793 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Gebhardt Action”) and Prinzel v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-10877 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Prinzel Action”); one in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned as Ortiz v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 1:20-cv-06043 (E.D.N.Y.) (the “Ortiz Action”, and, together with the Wang Action, the Horde Action, the Smith Action, the Neal Action, the Reyna Action, the Poole Action, the Hutson Action, the Bushansky Action, the Gebhardt Action, and the Prinzel Action, the “Federal Court Actions”); and one in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York, captioned as Gupta v. Parsley Energy, Inc. et al, No. 656659/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty) (the “Gupta Action” and, together with the Federal Court Actions, the “Stockholder Actions”). The Stockholder Actions were filed by purported Parsley stockholders and name Parsley and the members of the Parsley board as defendants. The Horde Action, Gupta Action, and Smith Action also name Pioneer, Merger Sub Inc., Merger Sub LLC and Opco Merger Sub LLC as defendants.
The Federal Court Actions allege, among other things, that the Preliminary Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus fails to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as well as Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange Act. The Gupta Action is a putative class action and asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the members of the Parsley board and claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Parsley, Pioneer and the merger subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that consideration for the Mergers is inadequate, that certain aspects of the sales process were deficient, that there are conflicts of interest between Parsley insiders and Parsley’s public stockholders and that the Preliminary Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus omitted material information. The Stockholder Actions seek injunctive relief enjoining the Mergers and damages and costs, among other remedies.
2