MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - continued
2:15-cv-10057-JCO-MJH). The lawsuit names Meadowbrook, each of our current directors, former director Herbert Tyner, Fosun, and Fosun’s merger vehicles as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to take appropriate steps to maximize the value of Meadowbrook to its shareholders, failing to value Meadowbrook properly, and ignoring or not protecting against directors’ alleged conflicts of interest in connection with the merger. The lawsuit also alleges that Meadowbrook, Fosun, and Fosun’s merger vehicles aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the merger and directing the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of the shareholders and that will obtain the best possible consideration. The lawsuit also purports to seek recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The lawsuit is in a preliminary stage.
On January 9, 2015, and January 12, 2015, two additional lawsuits, captioned Raul v. Cubbin, et al. (Case No. 2015-144933-CB), and Klein v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group, et al. (Case No. 2015-144948-CB), were filed in the Circuit Court of Oakland County, Michigan. These lawsuits asserted similar claims and allegations to those in the Steinberg lawsuit, on behalf of the same putative class. On February 2, 2015, upon stipulation by all parties, both the Raul and the Klein lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice. On February 6, 2015, the Klein and Raul plaintiffs jointly re-filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, captioned Klein v. Cubbin, et al. (Case No. 2:15-cv-10497-JCO-RSW). The lawsuit asserts similar claims and allegations to those in the Steinberg lawsuit, against the same defendants and on behalf of the same putative class of shareholders. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. It also purports to seek recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The lawsuit is in a preliminary stage.
16. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company held a note receivable from one of its executive officers with the total amount outstanding equal to $683,000 and $709,000, respectively, including $23,000 and $48,000 of accrued interest, respectively. This note arose from a transaction in late 1998 in which the Company loaned the officer funds to exercise 64,718 common stock options to cover the exercise price and the taxes incurred as a result of the exercise. The note bears interest equal to the rate charged pursuant to the Company’s revolving credit agreement and is due on demand any time after January 1, 2002. As of December 31, 2014, the rate was 2.76%. The loan is partially collateralized by 64,718 shares of the Company’s common stock under a stock pledge agreement. For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, $43,800 and $43,800, respectively, was paid against the loan. As of December 31, 2014, the cumulative amount that has been paid against this loan was $469,400.
The Company maintains an employment agreement with the executive officer, which provides that the note is a non-recourse loan and the Company’s sole legal remedy in the event of a default is the right to reclaim the shares pledged under the stock pledge agreement. Also, if there is a change in control of the Company and the officer is terminated or if the officer is terminated without cause, the note is cancelled and deemed paid in full. In these events, the officer may also retain the pledged shares of the Company, or, at the officer’s discretion, sell these shares back to the Company at the then current market price or their book value, whichever is greater.
If the officer is terminated by the Company for cause, the note is cancelled and considered paid in full. In this case, however, the officer forfeits the pledged shares of the Company, or, at the Company’s discretion, must sell these shares back to the Company for a nominal amount.
If the officer terminates his employment during the term of the agreement, the Company can demand full repayment of the note. If the note was not paid by the officer on the demand of the Company, the Company’s only recourse is to reclaim the shares of the Company that were pledged under the stock pledge agreement.
17. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS
Company employees over the age of 20 1/2 who have completed six months of service are eligible for participation in The Meadowbrook, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the “401(k) Plan”). The 401(k) Plan