Certain Litigation Relating to the Merger
As previously announced, Grubhub Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“Grubhub”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 10, 2020 (as amended on September 4, 2020 and March 12, 2021, the “Merger Agreement”), with Just Eat Takeaway.com N.V., a public company with limited liability (naamloze vennootschap) incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands (“Just Eat Takeaway.com”), Checkers Merger Sub I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Just Eat Takeaway.com, and Checkers Merger Sub II, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Just Eat Takeaway.com, pursuant to which Just Eat Takeaway.com will acquire Grubhub in an all-share combination in accordance with the Merger Agreement (the “Transaction”).
In connection with the Transaction, fourteen complaints have been filed by alleged shareholders of Grubhub (collectively, the “Shareholder Complaints”): Wang v. Grubhub, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-3756, Ferreiro v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03945 (the “Ferreiro Complaint”), Dennis v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03983, Johnson v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04104, Brown v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04118 (the “Brown Complaint”), Langlois v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04369 (the “Langlois Complaint”), Litwin v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04581, Heilmeier v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04687, Luftig v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04704 and Ryan v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04865 are individual actions that were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Litwin Complaint”); Carrier v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02508 and Lowinger v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02743 (the “Lowinger Complaint”) are individual actions that were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Williams v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00729 is an individual action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; Waterman v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02414 is an individual action filed the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Shareholder Complaints named as defendants Grubhub and members of its board of directors (the “Grubhub Board”) and allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by omitting supposedly material information from the preliminary proxy statement (the “Proxy Statement”) filed by Grubhub on April 27, 2021 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), rendering the filing false and/or misleading. The plaintiffs in the Ferreiro Complaint and Langlois Complaint further allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the members of the Grubhub Board as a result of an allegedly flawed and inadequate sales process, alleged potential conflicts of interest, and alleged failure to include information in the preliminary proxy statement. The plaintiffs in the Brown Complaint and Lowinger Complaint further allege that certain provisions in Merger Agreement are restrictive to Grubhub’s ability to consider other offers. The plaintiff in the Langlois Complaint alleges that Merger Consideration represents inadequate compensation for Grubhub shares and the plaintiffs in the Lowinger Complaint and Litwin Complaint allege that certain of Grubhub’s officers have significant financial interests in completing the Proposed Transaction because of potential payouts and positions in the combined company. The Shareholder Complaints seek various remedies, including, among other things, injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the Transaction unless certain allegedly material information is disclosed, a directive that defendants exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain an acquisition which is in the best interest of Grubhub Stockholders, an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses, rescission of the Transaction or an award of damages should the Transaction be consummated. A separate alleged shareholder, who did not also file a complaint, sent a demand to the Grubhub Board requesting additional disclosures.
Grubhub and the other named defendants believe that the disclosures set forth in the Proxy Statement comply fully with all applicable law, that no supplemental disclosures are required under applicable law, and that the plaintiffs’ allegations in each of the Shareholder Complaints are without merit. However, in an effort to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, to avoid nuisance and possible expense and transaction delays, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Grubhub is making certain disclosures set forth below that supplement and revise those contained in the Proxy Statement. Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable law of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, Grubhub and the other named defendants have denied, and continue to deny, that they have committed or assisted others in committing any violations of law, further deny all allegations that any disclosure was or is required or material, and expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they have complied with their respective legal obligations.