Item 8.01. Other Events.
Litigation Relating to the Merger
As previously disclosed, on August 18, 2019, Empire Resorts, Inc. (the “Company”) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among Hercules Topco LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Parent”), Hercules Merger Subsidiary Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (“Merger Sub”), and the Company. Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Kien Huat Realty III Limited (“Kien Huat”) and Genting Malaysia Berhard (“GenM”). Kien Huat, GenM and their respective affiliates are currently the holders of approximately 86% of the voting power of the Company’s outstanding capital stock. The Merger Agreement provides for, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company, with the Company surviving as a subsidiary of Parent (the “Merger”).
On October 8, 2019 and October 28, 2019, respectively, two putative class action complaints challenging the Merger were filed in New York State Supreme Court, Sullivan County. The first Sullivan County case is captionedDavid Mullen v. Empire Resorts, Inc. et al., Index No. E2019-2085 (the “Mullen State Court Litigation”). The second Sullivan County case is captionedJulie Milano v. Empire Resorts, Inc. et al., Index No. E2019-2207 (the “Milano Litigation,” and, collectively with the Mullen State Court Litigation, the “Sullivan County Litigations”). The Sullivan County Litigations allege that the members of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation and approval of the Merger Agreement, as well as in authorizing the disclosures made in the Company’s preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on September 24, 2019 (the “Preliminary Proxy”). The Sullivan County Litigations further allege that each of the Company, Parent, Merger Sub, Kien Huat, and GenM aided and abetted the Board’s alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On October 28, 2019, the plaintiff in the Mullen State Court Litigation voluntarily dismissed the Mullen State Court Litigation.
On October 15, 2019, October 18, 2019 and October 29, 2019, respectively, three federal complaints challenging the Merger were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Delaware federal case is captionedAdam Franchi v. Empire Resorts, Inc. et al., Case No.1:19-cv-01947-RGA (the “Franchi Litigation”) and the two New York federal cases are captionedDavid Mullen v. Empire Resorts, Inc. et al., Case No.1:19-cv-09632-LAK (the “Mullen Federal Litigation”) andHarold Litwin v. Empire Resorts, Inc. et al., Case No.1:19-cv-10026 (the “Litwin Litigation,” and, collectively with the Franchi Litigation, the Milano Litigation, and the Mullen Federal Litigation, the “Merger Litigations”). In the Franchi Litigation, Mullen Federal Litigation, and Litwin Litigation, each plaintiff asserts claims against the Company and certain members of the Board under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Each plaintiff alleges that the Company’s definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on October 11, 2019 (the “Proxy Statement”) was misleading and omitted certain information with respect to the Merger.
Each of the Merger Litigations seeks, among other things, to enjoin the Merger and recover damages, as well as an award of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs of the litigation.
The defendants deny all such allegations and believe the Merger Litigations are without merit. Furthermore, the defendants believe that the disclosures in the Preliminary Proxy and the Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. However, to alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide additional information to its stockholders, the Company has determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement as described in this Current Report on Form8-K. Nothing in this Current
1