Item 8.01 Other Events
As previously disclosed, Connecticut Water Service, Inc. (the “Company”), SJW Group, a Delaware corporation (“SJW”), and Hydro Sub, Inc., a Connecticut corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of SJW (“Merger Sub”), entered into the Second Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 5, 2018 (the “Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the “Merger”), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of SJW. On October 2, 2018, the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) a definitive proxy statement (the “Definitive Proxy Statement”) with respect to the special meeting of its shareholders scheduled to be held on November 16, 2018 in connection with the Merger (the “Special Meeting”).
Litigation Related to the Merger
As previously disclosed, on June 14, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed against the members of the board of directors of the Company, SJW and Mr. Eric W. Thornburg (Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of SJW) on behalf of shareholders of the Company in the Connecticut Superior Court in the Judicial District of Middlesex under the captionDunn v. Benoit, et al., Case No.MMX-CV18-6021536-S (Conn. Super. Ct.). The complaint, as amended on September 18, 2018, alleges, among other things, that (i) the members of the board of directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties owed to shareholders of the Company in connection with negotiating the merger; (ii) the Company’s preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on August 20, 2018, omits certain material information; and (iii) SJW and Mr. Thornburg aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the board of directors of the Company. Among other remedies, the action seeks to recover rescissory and other damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Also on June 14, 2018, a separate putative class action complaint was filed against the members of the board of directors of the Company, SJW and Mr. Thornburg on behalf of shareholders of the Company in the Connecticut Superior Court in the Judicial District of Middlesex under the captionTillotson v. Benoit, et al.,Case No. MMX-CV18-6021537-S (Conn. Super. Ct.). The complaint, as amended on September 20, 2018, alleges, among other things, that (i) the members of the board of directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties owed to shareholders of the Company in connection with negotiating the merger; (ii) the Company’s preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on August 20, 2018, omits certain material information; and (iii) SJW and Mr. Thornburg aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the board of directors of the Company. Among other remedies, the action seeks to recover rescissory and other damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.
On October 5, 2018, a putative class action complaint and a direct action complaint were filed against the Company and the members of the board of directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut under the captionsPaskowitz v. Connecticut Water Service, et al., Case No.3:18-cv-01663 (D. Conn.) andAssadv.Connecticut Water Service, et al., Case No.3:18-cv-01664 (D. Conn.), respectively. The nearly identical complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements or omissions in the Definitive Proxy Statement. Among other remedies, the actions seek to recover rescissory and other damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.
While the Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and that the disclosures in the Definitive Proxy Statement comply fully with applicable law, in order to avoid the expense and distraction of litigation, the parties to each of the above-referenced actions entered into agreements in principle to settle and release all claims that were or could have been alleged by the plaintiffs in all of those actions. The settlements provide for the dismissal of the actions subject to, among other things, the Company’s supplementation of the Definitive Proxy Statement with the supplemental disclosures set forth below (the “Supplemental Disclosures”).
Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable law of the Supplemental Disclosures. To the contrary, the Company specifically denies all allegations that any of the Supplemental Disclosures, or any other additional disclosures, were or are required.
The board of directors of the Company continues to unanimously recommend that shareholders of the Company vote “FOR” the proposal to approve the Merger Agreement and “FOR” the other proposals being considered at the Special Meeting.
Supplemental Disclosures to Definitive Proxy Statement
The Supplemental Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Definitive Proxy Statement, which should be read in its entirety. All page references in the information below are to pages in the Definitive Proxy Statement, and all terms used but not defined below shall have the meanings set forth in the Definitive Proxy Statement. Paragraph references used herein refer