On May 31, 2022, SailPoint Technologies Holdings, Inc. (“SailPoint” or the “Company”) filed a Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A (the “Definitive Proxy Statement”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), dated as of April 10, 2022, by and among the Company, Project Hotel California Holdings, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (“Parent”), and Project Hotel California Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (“Merger Sub”), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the “Merger”), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Thoma Bravo Fund XV, L.P., managed by Thoma Bravo, L.P. (“Thoma Bravo”). The special meeting of SailPoint stockholders (the “Special Meeting”) will be held virtually on June 30, 2022, at 12:30 p.m. Central time, to, among other things, act on the proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement, as disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement.
Regulatory Approvals
On June 21, 2022, SailPoint received written notice from the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) that BEIS has concluded that no further action is to be taken in relation to the proposed transaction under the UK National Security and Investment Act 2021, as amended.
Receipt of the BEIS clearance satisfies one of the conditions to closing of the proposed transaction. The transaction remains subject to other customary closing conditions, including approval by SailPoint stockholders and receipt of certain other regulatory approvals, and is expected to close in the second half of 2022.
Litigation Related to the Merger
On June 1, 2022, a purported individual shareholder of SailPoint filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bushansky v. SailPoint Technologies Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-04504, naming as defendants the Company and each member of the Company Board as of the date of the Merger Agreement (Bushansky). On June 9 and June 16, two additional cases were filed by purported individual shareholders of SailPoint in the same court, captioned Finger v. SailPoint Technologies Holdings, Inc., et al., 1:22-cv-04837 (Finger) and Nathan v. SailPoint Technologies Holdings, Inc., et al., 1:22-cv-05046 (Nathan). On June 2, 2022, one additional case was filed by a purported individual shareholder of SailPoint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Holness v. SailPoint Technologies Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-03268 (Holness). The Bushansky, Finger, Nathan and Holness cases, and any similar subsequently filed cases involving the Company, the Company Board or any committee thereof and/or any of the Company’s directors or officers relating directly or indirectly to the Merger Agreement, the Merger or any related transaction, are referred to as the “Merger Litigations.”
The Merger Litigations filed to date generally allege that the Definitive Proxy Statement is materially incomplete and misleading by allegedly failing to disclose certain purportedly material information. The Merger Litigations assert violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against SailPoint and the Company Board and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company Board. The Merger Litigations seek, among other things: an injunction enjoining consummation of the Merger, rescission of the Merger Agreement, a declaration that the Company and the Company Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, an order directing the Company Board to comply with the Exchange Act, damages, costs of the action, including attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees and expenses, and any other relief the court may deem just and proper.
SailPoint cannot predict the outcome of each Merger Litigation, nor can SailPoint predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve each Merger Litigation. SailPoint believes that the Bushansky, Finger, Nathan, and Holness cases are without merit and that no supplemental disclosures are required under applicable law, and SailPoint and its directors intend to vigorously defend against each Merger Litigation and any subsequently filed similar actions. It is possible that additional similar complaints could be filed in connection with the Merger. SailPoint cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss or range of loss from the Merger Actions. If any additional complaints are filed, absent new or significantly different allegations, SailPoint will not necessarily disclose such additional demand letters or filings.
While SailPoint believes that the disclosures set forth in the Definitive Proxy Statement comply fully with all applicable law and denies the allegations in the Merger Litigations, in order to moot plaintiffs’ disclosure claims, avoid nuisance and possible expense and business delays, and provide additional information to its shareholders, SailPoint has determined voluntarily to supplement certain disclosures in the Definitive Proxy Statement related to plaintiffs’ claims with the supplemental disclosures set forth below (the “Supplemental Disclosures”). Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal merit, necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, SailPoint specifically denies all allegations in the Merger Litigations that any additional disclosure was or is requested or material.