Litigation Related to the Merger
On August 8, 2022, subsequent to the announcement of the merger by and between Unity Software Inc. (“Unity”), Ursa Aroma Merger Subsidiary Ltd., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Unity (“Merger Sub”), and ironSource Ltd. (“ironSource”), whereby Merger Sub will merge with and into ironSource (the “Merger”), with ironSource continuing in existence as the surviving corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Unity, a putative class action complaint, captioned Assad v. Botha et al., Case No. 2022-0691, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Unity and the Unity board of directors (the “Unity board”). On September 9, 2022, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The complaint alleges that the Unity board breached its fiduciary duties by failing to disclose all material information necessary to allow Unity stockholders to make a fully informed decision on whether to approve the issuance of new shares of Unity common stock (the “Unity issuance proposal”) as a part of Unity’s definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on September 8, 2022 (the “Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus”). The plaintiff is a purported Unity stockholder and seeks to represent a class of Unity stockholders who will vote in connection with the Unity issuance proposal. The complaint seeks additional disclosure and an award of attorneys’ fees, among other remedies.
The results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict, and these matters could delay or prevent the Merger from becoming effective in a timely manner. Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be predicted with certainty, Unity believes that the claims asserted against Unity and its directors are without merit. Unity intends to defend against this action vigorously.
Unity does not believe any supplemental disclosures are required or necessary under applicable laws or that any information contained herein is material. However, solely to moot the unmeritorious disclosure claims and minimize the risk, costs, burden, nuisance and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Unity has determined to voluntarily supplement the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus as described in this Current Report on Form 8-K (this “Form 8-K”). Nothing in this Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, Unity specifically denies all allegations made in the complaint that any additional disclosure was or is required. Unity believes that the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus disclosed all material information required to be disclosed therein, and denies that the supplemental disclosures are material or are otherwise required to be disclosed. Nothing in the supplemental disclosures should be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any supplemental disclosures under applicable laws.
Supplemental Disclosures
The following disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in its entirety. To the extent that information herein differs from or updates information contained in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, the information contained herein supersedes the information contained in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, unless otherwise defined below. All page references in the information below are to the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. New text is underlined and deleted text is stricken through.
The following disclosure amends and restates the seventh paragraph appearing on Page 92 of the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus in its entirety.
On the same day, the Unity Finance Committee held a meeting with representatives of Unity’s management team, Morgan Stanley, Morrison Foerster, and Cooley to discuss updates with respect to the PIPE Transaction, including, among other things, pricing considerations and strategic rationale. As a part of the meeting, Morgan Stanley reviewed certain financial analyses regarding the PIPE Transaction in comparison to other PIPE transactions and alternatives to the PIPE Transaction, including with respect to the cost of capital of the PIPE Transaction in multiple scenarios, and considerations around the proposed stock buyback and potential consequences of the PIPE Transaction and stock buyback. Morgan Stanley’s review assigned a theoretical valuation to the PIPE Transaction of 111% of par and identified comparable sponsor PIPE transactions