“Following the filing of the Schedule TO, purported stockholders of Aimmune filed seven lawsuits challenging the Offer and the Merger. On September 21, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Shah v. Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-06609 (the “Shah Complaint”). On September 23, 2020, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Davis v. Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04518 (the “Davis Complaint”). On September 24, 2020, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Fenton v. Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07907 (the “Fenton Complaint”), and a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Rosenblatt v. Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01289 (the “Rosenblatt Complaint”). On September 25, 2020, (a) a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Bushansky v. Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-06718 (the “Bushansky Complaint”), (b) a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California San Francisco Division, captioned Germano v. Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-06733 (the “Germano Complaint”) and (c) a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Tsenter v. Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07989 (the “Tsenter Complaint”). On September 28, 2020, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Wodarski v. Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01299 (the “Wodarski Complaint” and together with the Shah Complaint, the Davis Complaint, the Fenton Complaint, the Rosenblatt Complaint, the Bushansky Complaint, the Germano Complaint and the Tsenter Complaint, the “Complaints”). The Complaints name Aimmune and the members of the Aimmune Board as defendants, and the Rosenblatt Complaint and the Wodarski Complaint also name Nestlé and Purchaser as defendants. Each Complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) Aimmune and the members of the Aimmune Board violated (A) Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and (B) Section 14(d)(4) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-9 promulgated thereunder (except for the Bushansky Complaint and the Germano Complaint, which did not make any allegations contemplated by this clause (B), and the Wodarski Complaint, which did not make any allegations with respect to Section 14(d)(4) of the Exchange Act), and (ii) the members of the Aimmune Board (and, in the case of the Rosenblatt Complaint, Nestlé and Purchaser, each of which is alleged to be a control person for purposes of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act) also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, in each case, by preparing and disseminating a Schedule 14D-9 that misstates or omits certain allegedly material information. Furthermore, the Wodarski Complaint also alleges that Nestlé and Purchaser made such violations with respect to Section 14(e) of the of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-9 promulgated thereunder. In addition, the Shah Complaint also alleges that (1) the members of the Aimmune Board breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement through a flawed and unfair process and by failing to disclose all material information to Aimmune’s stockholders and (2) Aimmune aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of the Aimmune Board. Furthermore, the Germano Complaint alleges that the members of the Aimmune Board breached their fiduciary duty of candor/disclosure by approving or causing the dissemination of a Schedule 14D-9 that misstates or omits certain allegedly material information. Each Complaint seeks, among other things, (x) injunctive relief enjoining the consummation of the Offer and the Merger, (y) if the Offer and the Merger are consummated, rescission or rescissory damages and (z) an award of the plaintiff’s costs, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The defendants believe that all of the claims asserted in the Complaints are without merit.
Additionally, on September 28, 2020, purported stockholder Cecilia Pemberton sent the Company a books and records demand pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220 in connection with such stockholder’s investigation of, among other things, the Preliminary Projections, possible conflicts of interest of and breaches of fiduciary duty by members of the Aimmune Board and the omission of certain potentially material information from the Schedule 14D-9.”
4