Litigation Relating to the Merger
As previously disclosed, on November 29, 2021, IHS Markit Ltd., a Bermuda exempted company limited by shares (“IHS Markit”) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto, the “Merger Agreement”) with S&P Global Inc., a New York corporation (“S&P Global”) and Sapphire Subsidiary, Ltd. a Bermuda exempted company limited by shares and a wholly owned subsidiary of the S&P Global (“Merger Sub”). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, IHS Markit will merge with and into Merger Sub, with IHS Markit continuing as the surviving entity (the “Merger”). On January 22, 2021, each of IHS Markit and S&P Global filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus (the “Definitive Proxy Statement”) with respect to the respective special meetings of IHS Markit and S&P Global shareholders scheduled to be held on March 11, 2021 in connection with the Merger.
As of March 1, 2021, twelve lawsuits (collectively, the “Actions”) have been filed relating to the Merger in federal and state courts, including one purported class action lawsuit, against S&P Global, the S&P Global board of directors, IHS Markit, the IHS Markit board of directors and/or Merger Sub. The Actions are, in the order they were filed, Stein v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00229 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2021); Shi v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00296 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2021); Ye v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00617 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2021); Shumacher v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00621 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2021), which was subsequently dismissed and refiled as Kogus v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., No. 1:21-cv-01285 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2021); Snitkoff v. Alvera et al., No. 650576/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 26, 2021); William B. Federman Living Trust Trust No. 1 v. S&P Global Inc. et al., No 3:21-cv-00791 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2021); Kent v. S&P Global Inc. et al., No. 3:21-cv-01118 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2021); Coffman v. S&P Global Inc. et al., 3:21-cv-01343 (N.D. Cal. Feb 24, 2021); Nguyen v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., 2:21-cv-00848 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2021); Parshall v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., 1:21-cv-01662 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2021); and Wilson v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., 1:21-cv-01700 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2021).
The Actions filed in federal court generally allege that the Definitive Proxy Statement misrepresents and/or omits certain purportedly material information and assert violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Snitkoff, the sole Action filed in state court, alleges, among other things, that the members of the S&P Global board of directors breached their state law fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement and in disseminating materially incomplete disclosures. The alleged material misstatements and omissions relate to, among other topics, the opinion of Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC, S&P Global’s financial advisor in connection with the Merger, the opinion of Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, IHS Markit’s financial advisor in connection with the Merger, and certain background events that occurred in connection with the Merger.
Among other relief, the plaintiffs in the Actions seek injunctive relief, including directing S&P Global and IHS Markit to disclose the allegedly omitted material information, enjoining the Merger unless and until S&P Global and IHS Markit disclose the allegedly omitted material information, rescinding the Merger in the event S&P Global, IHS Markit and Merger Sub consummate the Merger (or, in the alternative, rescinding the Merger or awarding recissory damages) and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses.
S&P Global and IHS Markit deny the allegations in the Actions and deny any alleged violations of law or any legal or equitable duty. The defendants believe that the Actions are without merit, and that no further disclosure is required under applicable law. Nonetheless, to avoid the risk of the litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger, and without admitting in any way that the disclosures below are material or otherwise required by law, the defendants are making supplemental disclosures (the “litigation-related supplemental disclosures”) related to the Merger, as set forth herein. 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 supplemental disclosures set forth herein, taken individually or in the aggregate. The litigation-related supplemental disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Definitive Proxy Statement, which should be read in its entirety. Page references in the below disclosure are to pages in the Definitive Proxy Statement, and defined terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Definitive Proxy Statement. To the extent the following information differs from or conflicts with the information contained in the Definitive Proxy Statement, the information set forth below shall be deemed to supersede the respective information in the Definitive Proxy Statement.