The Board of Directors received a demand letter, dated April 9, 2018, from an attorney representing Phillip Swan (“Swan”), a purported current shareholder of the Company, relating to the subject matter covered by the Securities Class Action (the “Swan Shareholder Demand”). The letter demanded that the Board of Directors conduct an investigation into the statements and other matters at issue in the Securities Class Action and commence legal proceedings against each party identified as being responsible for the alleged activities. After an investigation and due consideration, and in the exercise of its business judgment, the Board determined that it is not in the best interests of the Company to commence litigation against any current or former officers or directors based on the matters raised in the Swan Shareholder Demand. In November 2018, the Board also received shareholder demands from two additional purported shareholders, Tom Bradley (“Bradley”) and Sarah Smith (“Smith”), each represented by the same counsel as Swan, that were substantively identical to the Swan Shareholder Demand (the “Bradley/Smith Shareholder Demands”). The Board reached the same conclusion with respect to those demands as it reached with the Swan Shareholder Demand. On August 22, 2018, Stourbridge Investments LLC, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a derivative action purportedly on behalf of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the current directors of the Company as well as certain officers alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and state-law claims including breach of fiduciary duty. Stourbridge Investments LLC v. Callen et al., No. 1:18-cv-07638. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants are responsible for the Company’s failure to disclose the financial condition of Orianna Health Systems, the alleged non-disclosures that are also the subject of the Securities Class Action described above. The defendants in the action are the three individual defendants named in the Securities Class Action (Messrs. Pickett, Booth and Stephenson), as well as the Company’s non-management directors. The plaintiff did not make a demand on the Company to bring the action prior to filing it, but rather alleges that demand would have been futile. The parties have entered into a stipulation in which they agreed to stay the case, including any response by defendants, pending the entry of judgment or a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in the Securities Class Action. The agreed-upon stipulation and order to stay the case were entered by the Court on October 25, 2018.
On January 30, 2019, Swan filed a derivative action in the Baltimore City Circuit Court of Maryland, purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain current and former directors of the Company as well as certain officers, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. Swan v. Pickett, et al., No. 24-C-19-000573. Swan alleges that the Swan Shareholder Demand was wrongfully refused. On February 21, 2019, Bradley and Smith filed a derivative action in the Baltimore City Circuit Court of Maryland, purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain current and former directors of the Company as well as certain officers, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment. Bradley and Smith v. Callen, et al., No. 24-c-19-000972. Bradley and Smith allege that the Bradley/Smith Shareholder Demands were wrongly refused. The derivative actions brought by Swan and Bradley and Smith have been consolidated under the heading of the Swan action. The parties in those actions have agreed to a stay of proceedings pending the issuance of a mandate from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the appeal of the dismissal of the Securities Class Action. On October 11, 2019, the Court issued an order adopting the stay of proceedings agreed to by the parties.
Separately, four lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of MedEquities against MedEquities and its directors challenging the proposed merger between MedEquities and the Company. Two of the lawsuits also named the Company as a defendant. Three of these actions have been dismissed, including both actions that named the Company as defendant.
On February 21, 2019, a purported stockholder of MedEquities filed a lawsuit against MedEquities, members of the MedEquities board of directors, and the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Brekka v. MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc., et al., Case 1:19-cv-00535-JKB. The complaint alleged, among other things, that MedEquities, members of the MedEquities’ Board, and the Company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making materially incomplete and misleading statements in, and/or omitting certain information that is material to stockholders from, the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as filed with the SEC on February 11, 2019 (the “Form S-4”), relating to the merger. The complaint sought, among other things, an injunction preventing the consummation of the merger and, in the event the merger is consummated, rescission of the merger or damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. Following completion of the merger in May 2019, on September 27, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and in response, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action with prejudice. This action is thus dismissed.