Beginning on July 26, 2022, two purported holders of Prologis common stock filed substantially similar complaints against Prologis and the members of the Prologis board of directors in federal district court. One complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and one complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints are captioned as follows:
Bushansky
v.
Prologis, Inc. et al.
, No.
(N.D. Ca. filed July 26, 2022); and
Curtis
v.
Prologis, Inc. et al.
, No.
(S.D.N.Y. filed September 13, 2022) (collectively, the “Prologis Federal Actions”). The complaints in the Prologis Federal
Actions allege that Prologis and the Prologis board violated federal securities laws by omitting or misstating material information in the Form
S-4
in connection with the Mergers, rendering the Form
S-4
materially deficient. Beginning on July 27, 2022, six purported holders of DRE common stock filed substantially similar complaints against DRE and the members of the DRE board of directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints are captioned as follows:
Stein
v.
Duke Realty Corporation et al.
, No.
(filed July 27, 2022);
O’Dell
v.
Duke Realty Corporation et al.
, No.
(filed July 28, 2022);
Whitfield
v.
Duke Realty Corporation et al.
, No.
(filed August 2, 2022);
McCollum
v.
Duke Realty Corporation et al.
, No.
(filed August 3, 2022);
Moore
v.
Duke Realty Corporation et al.
, No.
(filed September 13, 2022); and
Riley
v.
Duke Realty Corporation et al.
, No.
(filed September 14, 2022) (collectively, the “DRE Actions” and together with the Prologis Federal Actions, the “Federal Actions”). The complaints in the DRE
Actions allege that DRE and the DRE board violated federal securities laws by omitting or misstating material information in the Form
S-4
in connection with the Mergers, rendering the Form
S-4
materially deficient. The plaintiffs in the Federal Actions seek, among other things, (i) to enjoin the transaction until the alleged deficiencies in the Form
S-4
are corrected, and (ii) attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs in connection with the lawsuit.
In addition, on August 3, 2022, an action captioned
Garfield v. Moghadam et. al.
, No.
C22-01579,
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa against Prologis and the Prologis board of directors (the “Garfield Action” and, together with the Federal Actions, the “Actions”). The complaint in the Garfield Action asserts, among other things, claims for breach of fiduciary duty under Maryland law as well as securities fraud under California law against Prologis and the Prologis board of directors. The complaint alleges that Prologis and the Prologis board of directors caused a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and made available to the Prologis stockholders.
The defendants believe that the Actions are without merit. The defendants deny that any further disclosure beyond that already contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus that was filed by Prologis and DRE on August 2, 2022 and which has been disseminated to Prologis stockholders and DRE shareholders (the “Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus”) is required under applicable law to supplement the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Nonetheless, to avoid the risk that the Actions may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Mergers and to minimize the expense of defending such Actions, the defendants are making the following supplemental disclosures (the “litigation-related supplemental disclosures”) to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Nothing in this Report shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the supplemental disclosures set forth herein.
The litigation-related supplemental disclosures contained below should be read in conjunction with the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which is available on the Internet site maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov, along with periodic reports and other information Prologis and DRE file with the SEC. To the extent that the information set forth herein differs from or updates information contained in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, the information set forth herein shall supersede or supplement the information in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. All page references are to pages in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, and terms used below, unless otherwise defined, have the meanings set forth in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus.
The disclosure under the heading “The Mergers—Background of the Mergers” is hereby amended and supplemented by replacing the second full paragraph on page 60 of the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus in its entirety with the following: