On or around 12/12/2016 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)
Filing Date: November 11, 2016
According to a law firm's press release, on October 21, 2016, Everyday Health announced the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which each outstanding common share of Everyday Health will be exchanged for $10.50 per share in cash or a transaction value of approximately $465 million (the “Proposed Transaction” or “Merger”). The Proposed Transaction is structured as an all-cash tender offer, which requires a simple majority of Everyday Health shares to be tendered to Ziff Davis, LLC (“Ziff”) by the close of the offer period.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants have agreed to lock up the Proposed Transaction with deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making a successful competing offer for the Company. Specifically, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Defendants agreed to: (a) a strict no-solicitation provision that prevents the Company from soliciting other potential acquirers or even from continuing discussions and negotiations with potential acquirers; (b) a termination fee of up to $15,180,000 payable by Everyday Health to Ziff under certain circumstances, including the sale of the Company to another bidder; and (c) a “matching rights” provision that allows Ziff to match any competing proposal in the event one emerges. These provisions substantially and improperly limit the Board’s ability to act with respect to investigating and pursing superior proposals.
This case was voluntarily dismissed on December 12, 2016.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Everyday Health, Inc.
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: EVDY
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)
About the Company & Securities Data
"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.
In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
First Identified Complaint
Michael Means, et al. v. Everyday Health, Inc., et al.