As previously disclosed on a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2021, Mimecast Limited, a public company incorporated under the laws of the Bailiwick of Jersey (“Mimecast”), entered into a Transaction Agreement with Magnesium Bidco Limited, a private limited company incorporated in England & Wales (“Buyer”), pursuant to which Buyer, or one of its affiliates, will acquire Mimecast in an all-cash transaction pursuant to a scheme of arrangement under Part 18A of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991, as amended from time to time (the “Transaction”). On February 9, 2022, Mimecast filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) a definitive proxy statement (the “Definitive Proxy Statement”) with respect to the special meetings of the shareholders of Mimecast scheduled to be held on March 11, 2022, in connection with the Transaction.
Litigation Relating to the Transaction
As previously disclosed, on January 14, 2022, in connection with the Transaction, a purported individual shareholder of Mimecast filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned O’Dell v. Mimecast Limited, et al., No. 1:22-cv-00367, naming as defendants the Company and each member of the Company Board as of the date of the Transaction Agreement (O’Dell). Between January 21, 2022 and January 25, 2022, three additional cases were filed by purported individual shareholders of Mimecast in the same court, captioned Whitfield v. Mimecast Limited, et al., 1:22-cv-00579 (Whitfield), Smith v. Mimecast Limited, et al., No. 1:22-cv-00630 (Smith), and Hutchinson v. Mimecast Limited, et al., No. 1:22-cv-00665 (Hutchinson), and on January 23, 2022, one additional case was filed by a purported individual shareholder of Mimecast in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Mendoza v. Mimecast Limited, et al., No. 1:22-cv-00384 (Mendoza). The O’Dell, Whitfield, Smith, Hutchinson, and Mendoza cases, and any similar subsequently filed cases involving the Company, the Company Board or any committee thereof and/or any of the Company’s directors or officers relating directly or indirectly to the Transaction Agreement, the Transaction or any related transaction, are referred to as the “Transaction Litigations.”
The Transaction Litigations filed to date generally allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Mimecast with the SEC on January 13, 2022 in connection with the Transaction is materially incomplete and misleading by allegedly failing to disclose certain purportedly material information. The Transaction Litigations assert violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and 17 C.F.R. § 244.100 against Mimecast and the Company Board and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company Board. The Transaction Litigations seek, among other things: an injunction enjoining consummation of the Transaction, rescission of the Transaction Agreement, a declaration that the Company and the Company Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, an order directing the Company Board to comply with the Exchange Act, damages, costs of the action, including plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees and expenses, and any other relief the court may deem just and proper.
Mimecast cannot predict the outcome of each Transaction Litigation, nor can Mimecast predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve each Transaction Litigation. Mimecast believes that the O’Dell, Whitfield, Smith, Hutchinson, and Mendoza cases are without merit and Mimecast and its directors intend to vigorously defend against each Transaction Litigation and any subsequently filed similar actions.
It is possible that additional similar complaints could be filed in connection with the Transaction.
While Mimecast believes that the disclosures set forth in the Definitive Proxy Statement comply fully with all applicable law and denies the allegations in the Transaction Litigations, in order to moot plaintiffs’ disclosure claims, avoid nuisance and possible expense and business delays, and provide additional information to its shareholders, Mimecast has determined voluntarily to supplement certain disclosures in the Definitive Proxy Statement related to plaintiffs’ claims with the supplemental disclosures set forth below (the “Supplemental Disclosures”). Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal merit, necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, Mimecast specifically denies all allegations in the Transaction Litigations that any additional disclosure was or is required or material.