Explanatory Note
As previously disclosed, on June 21, 2022, ProFrac Holding Corp. (“ProFrac”) and U.S. Well Services, Inc. (“USWS”) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among ProFrac, USWS and Thunderclap Merger Sub I, Inc., an indirect subsidiary of ProFrac (“Merger Sub”). The Merger Agreement provides that Merger Sub will merge with and into USWS, with USWS surviving the merger as the surviving corporation and an indirect subsidiary of ProFrac (the “Merger”).
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the parties filed a proxy statement/information statement/prospectus that was (1) included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-267168) (the “Registration Statement”) filed by ProFrac with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on August 30, 2022, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement, filed by ProFrac with the SEC on September 22, 2022 and declared effective by the SEC on September 28, 2022, (2) filed by ProFrac with the SEC pursuant to Rule 424(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on September 28, 2022, (3) in the Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed by USWS on September 28, 2022, and (4) sent by USWS to its Class A common stockholders commencing on September 28, 2022. The information contained in this supplemental disclosure is incorporated by reference into the proxy statement/information statement/prospectus. Terms used in this supplemental disclosure, but not otherwise defined, have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the proxy statement/information statement/prospectus.
Following the announcement of the entry into the Merger Agreement, certain alleged USWS stockholders filed separate individual actions in federal court against USWS and its board of directors. As of October 17, 2022, those actions were: McGowan v. U.S. Well Services, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 22-cv-07518 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2022), Wilson v. U.S. Well Services, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 22-cv-01340-UNA (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2022), and Brian Jones v. U.S. Well Services, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 22-cv-08625 (S.D.NY. Oct. 11, 2022). Other alleged stockholders have made demands of USWS in connection with the Merger, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
USWS and the other named defendants deny that they have violated any laws or breached any duties to USWS’ stockholders and believe that these lawsuits and demands are without merit and that no supplemental disclosure is required to the proxy statement/information statement/prospectus under any applicable law, rule or regulation. However, solely in an effort to mitigate the burden and expense of litigation and to avoid any possible disruption to the Merger that could result from further litigation, ProFrac and USWS are providing the supplemental disclosures set forth below, which should be read in conjunction with the proxy statement/information statement/prospectus in its entirety. Nothing in this supplemental disclosure is to be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein.
The following disclosure supplements the discussion beginning on page 81 of the proxy statement/information statement/prospectus under the heading “Background of the Merger.”
In addition to entering into a confidentiality agreement with ProFrac, USWS entered into confidentiality agreements with two other counterparties for the purpose of discussing a possible strategic investment or business combination with such counterparties. These counterparties are identified as Company A and Company B on page 84 of the proxy statement/information statement/prospectus. Each of these confidentiality agreements was substantially the same as the confidentiality agreement between USWS and ProFrac, except that one of the agreements included a provision that restricted the management of the counterparty, which was not ProFrac, from engaging in certain acts seeking to influence the board or management of USWS. These restrictions expired one year from its execution date. These additional restrictions would not preclude any potentially interested parties from making superior offers to USWS or its board and management. None of the agreements contained “standstill” provisions or “don’t ask, don’t waive” provisions.
At no point during the discussions between the parties that are summarized under the heading “Background of the Merger” were any discussions held between representatives of ProFrac and USWS regarding post-transaction employment opportunities or compensation for USWS’ employees.
The following disclosure supplements the discussion beginning on page 113 of the proxy statement/information statement/prospectus under the heading “USWS Prospective Financial Information.”
Management of USWS prepared the USWS projections described in the proxy statement/information statement/prospectus. The USWS projections described in the proxy statement/information statement/prospectus were provided to Piper Sandler and Piper Sandler included these projections in its summary materials presented to the USWS Special Committee, and subsequently, to the USWS Board.