On August 17, 2020, Analog Devices, Inc. (“ADI”) filed a registration statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-248092) (as amended, the “Form S-4”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in connection with ADI’s proposed acquisition of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (“Maxim”) pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 12, 2020 (as it may be amended from time to time, the “Merger Agreement”), by and among ADI, Magneto Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of ADI (“Acquisition Sub”) and Maxim. On September 4, 2020, ADI filed with the SEC the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the special meeting of shareholders of ADI scheduled to be held on October 8, 2020 (the “Definitive Proxy Statement”) to, among other things, vote on a proposal to approve the issuance of shares of ADI common stock to Maxim stockholders in connection with the merger.
Since the initial filing of the Form S-4, six complaints (collectively, the “Maxim Stockholder Complaints”), including two putative securities class action lawsuits, have been filed in federal courts in California, Delaware and New York by purported Maxim stockholders against Maxim and the members of the Maxim board of directors in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement: Shiva Stein v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-05830 (N.D. Cal., filed August 18, 2020); Joseph Post v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:99-mc-09999 (D. Del., filed August 24, 2020) (the “Post Action”); Waseem Khan v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03982 (E.D.N.Y., filed August 26, 2020); Joseph Burns v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-07168 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 2, 2020); John Husselman v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07525 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 14, 2020); and Joseph Schaffer v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-06816 (N.D. Cal., filed September 30, 2020). The Post Action also names ADI and Acquisition Sub as defendants. In addition, one complaint, Coe Living Trust v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11682 (D. Mass., filed September 11, 2020), has been filed by a purported ADI shareholder in federal court in Massachusetts against ADI and the members of the ADI board of directors (the “Coe Action” and, together with the Maxim Stockholder Complaints, the “Federal Stockholder Complaints”) and one derivative lawsuit has been filed against the members of the ADI board of directors in state court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mass. Sup. Ct., Norfolk Cnty., Case No. 20-0864, filed September 11, 2020) (the “ADI State Action” and, together with the Federal Stockholder Complaints, the “Stockholder Actions”). Each of the Federal Stockholder Complaints alleges, among other things, that the Form S-4 omits material information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The ADI State Action alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims against ADI’s directors in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including that the directors fraudulently concealed information based on allegations that the Form S-4 misrepresents or omits material information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. The plaintiffs in the Federal Stockholder Complaints and the ADI State Action, among other things, seek to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement (and in two cases, to enjoin the shareholder vote) or, in the alternative, rescission of the merger or rescissionary damages, and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses.
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES
This supplemental information should be read in conjunction with the Definitive Proxy Statement, which should be read in its entirety. Page references in the below disclosures 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. ADI and Maxim deny the allegations in the complaints related to the Stockholder Actions and deny any alleged violations of law or any legal or equitable duty. Without admitting in any way that the disclosures below are material or otherwise required by law, ADI and Maxim make the following amended and supplemental disclosures solely for the purpose of mooting the allegations in the complaints related to the Stockholder Actions.