THE FOLLOWING RECITATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. THE COURT HAS MADE NO FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING MATTERS AND THESE RECITATIONS SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION OF THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES RAISED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES.
On August 25, 2020, FAST, a special purpose acquisition corporation (“SPAC”) incorporated in Delaware and formed by certain Defendants, consummated its IPO of 20,000,000 units, whereby each unit (1) consisted of one share of Class A common stock and one-half of one redeemable warrant, with each whole warrant entitling the holder thereof to purchase one share of Class A common stock for $11.50 per share, and (2) was sold for $10.00 per unit; as a SPAC, FAST’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation required FAST to complete an initial business combination within 24 months of the IPO or otherwise redeem all of its outstanding Class A Common stock and dissolve.
Before FAST’s IPO, certain Defendants had purchased 7,187,500 shares of Class B common stock in FAST (the “Founder Shares”) in exchange for a capital contribution of $25,000; subsequently, 2,187,500 Founder Shares were forfeited, resulting in 5,000,000 Founder Shares remaining.
On February 1, 2021, FAST entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the “Merger Agreement,” and the transaction contemplated therein, the “Merger”) with Fertitta Entertainment, Inc. (“Fertitta”).
On November 24, 2021, FAST issued its proxy statement asking FAST’s stockholders to consider and vote upon (among other things) the Merger.
On December 1, 2021, the Company received a notice from Fertitta that purported to terminate the Merger Agreement.
On December 9, 2021, FAST and Fertitta entered into a Termination and Settlement Agreement (the “Merger Settlement Agreement”), pursuant to which the parties agreed to mutually terminate the Merger Agreement and Fertitta agreed to (1) pay $6,000,000.00 to the Company within three business days, (2) loan $1,000,000.00 to the Company within five business days, and (3) pay to FAST either (a) $10,000,000.00 in the event that the Company consummated an initial business combination, or (b) $26,000,000.00 if the Company did not consummate an initial business combination and determined to redeem its public shares and liquidate and dissolve (all amounts collectively, the “Termination Fee”). As FAST did not consummate an initial business combination, Fertitta loaned $1,000,000 to the Company and ultimately paid $32,000,000 pursuant to the Merger Settlement Agreement.
On August 9, 2022, SPE filed its Verified Class Action Complaint in Special Opportunities Fund, Inc. v. FAST Acquisition Corp. et al., C.A. No. 2022-0702-PAF (the “SPE Action”) for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Monetary Relief (the “SPE Complaint”) on behalf of itself and similarly situated stockholders of FAST against Defendants asserting a claim for breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the termination of the Merger Agreement and the Termination Fee. The SPE Complaint alleged that, after the directors of FAST determined that the Company would liquidate and distribute its assets, the assets remaining from the Termination Fee (after payment of taxes and expenses) should have been distributed to Class A common stockholders. Plaintiffs claim that had the Action not been filed, the remainder of the Termination Fee would have been distributed only to holders of Class B Founder Shares, including FAST’s directors, and FAST’s Class A common stockholders would have received no part of the Termination Fee. The SPE Complaint alleged that this result would have constituted a breach of fiduciary duty by the directors of FAST.
At the time the SPE Complaint was filed, SPE also requested expedited treatment and filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. SPE sought to prevent any distribution of the Termination Fee to the holders of the Founder Shares until questions of the legality and fairness of such action were resolved.
On August 11, 2022, Spritzer filed his Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint (the “Spritzer Complaint”) in Spritzer v. Jacob et al., C.A. No. 2022-0706-PAF (the “Spritzer Action”) asserting substantially similar claims as in the SPE Action.
On or about August 14, 2022, SPE and the Defendants reached an agreement which required the Company to provide notice to counsel for SPE before paying certain expenses, debts, or liabilities pending resolution of this Action. The terms of that agreement are set out in the Order Resolving Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, entered by the Court on August 16, 2022 (Trans. ID 67938104).
On August 17, 2022, GPC filed its Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint (the “GPC Complaint”) in Great Point Capital, LLC v. Jacob et al., C.A. No. 2022-0726-PAF (the “GPC Action”) asserting substantially similar claims as the SPE Action.
On August 25, 2022, ADAR1 filed its Verified Stockholder Derivative and Direct Class Action Complaint (the “ADAR1 Complaint”) in ADAR1 Partners, L.P. v. Fast Sponsor, LLC et al., C.A. No. 2022-0760-PAF (the “ADAR1 Action”) asserting substantially similar claims as in the SPE Action.
On August 26, 2022, FAST redeemed all of its outstanding shares of Class A common stock because FAST did not consummate an initial business combination within the time period required by its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. In connection with the redemption, the Class A common stockholders received approximately $10.0275 per share.
On September 15, 2022, the Court entered an Order, which consolidated the SPE, Spritzer, GPC, and ADAR1 Actions for all purposes into the Action and, among other things, (1) appointed SPE as Lead Plaintiff in the Action, (2) appointed the law firms Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Morris Kandinov LLP as Lead Counsel (collectively, “Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel”), and (3) formed an Executive Committee comprised of GPC, Spritzer, and ADAR1 and represented by Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Fields Kupka & Shukurov LLP, and AFN Law, PLLC.
On December 27, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed the Amended Verified Class Action Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Monetary Relief (the “Amended Complaint”; and together with the SPE Complaint, the Spritzer Complaint, the GPC Complaint, and the ADAR1 Complaint, the “Complaints”). The Amended Complaint sought, among other things, a Court order requiring Defendants to distribute the Company’s remaining assets, including the remaining portion of the Termination Fee, to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class.
On March 1, 2023, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Counts I, III, and IV of the Amended Complaint.
On March 31, 2023, Lead Plaintiff filed the Notice of Voluntary Partial Dismissal Without Prejudice, dismissing Counts I, III, and IV of the Amended Complaint.
On April 28, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiffs’ Amended Verified Class Action Complaint. Defendants asserted as defenses, among others things, that FAST redeemed the FAST Class A common stock in accordance with the express terms of FAST’s certificate of incorporation, that such redemption completely extinguished the rights of the holders of FAST Class A common stock, and that the directors had no fiduciary duty to distribute the Company’s assets in a manner inconsistent with FAST’s certificate of incorporation.
Between April 2023 and August 2023, the Parties engaged in document and other written discovery, including the following: (1) Lead Plaintiff served on Defendants 21 interrogatories, 10 requests for admission, and 21 requests for the production of documents, and (2) Defendants served (a) on Plaintiffs ADAR1, GPC, Cladrius, and Spritzer 15 interrogatories, (b) on Lead Plaintiff SPE 21 interrogatories, (c) on Plaintiffs ADAR1, GPC, Cladrius, and Spritzer 25 requests for the production of documents, and (d) on Lead Plaintiff SPE 34 requests for the production of documents.
On June 15, 2023, Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel participated in a mediation session before Miles N. Ruthberg (the “Mediator”). In advance of that session, Lead Plaintiff and Defendants exchanged mediation statements and exhibits to the Mediator, which addressed the issues of both liability and damages. Plaintiffs set forth a summary of their claims and the issues presented in this case (as summarized in paragraph 10 of the Notice). Defendants set forth their defenses (as summarized in paragraph 21 of the Notice), including their assertion that Defendants had complied with the Company’s certificate of incorporation and that the Class A common stockholders were not entitled to any assets beyond the redemption amount calculated in accordance with FAST’s certificate of incorporation. The session ended without any agreement being reached.
On June 22, 2023, Defendants made an initial production of documents consisting of approximately 1,000 pages.
Following the in-person mediation session, Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel engaged in numerous additional negotiations under the supervision and guidance of the Mediator throughout June, July, and August 2023.
As a result of extensive, arm’s-length negotiations at the mediation session, and following the mediation session, the Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Action that was memorialized in a Settlement Term Sheet executed on August 11, 2023 (the “Settlement Term Sheet”). The Settlement Term Sheet set forth, among other things, the Parties’ agreement to settle and release all claims against Defendants in the Action in return for a cash payment of $12,500,000.00 (United States Dollars), subject to certain terms and conditions and the execution of a customary “long form” stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers.
On August 22, 2023, the Parties informed the Court of the agreement in principle to settle the Action and agreed to suspend all upcoming deadlines in the Action.
After additional negotiations regarding the specific terms of their agreement, the Parties entered into the Stipulation on October 4, 2023. The Stipulation, which reflects the final and binding agreement between the Parties on the terms and conditions of the Settlement and supersedes the Settlement Term Sheet, can be viewed on this website.
On November 9, 2023, the Court entered a Scheduling Order directing that notice of the Settlement be provided to potential Class Members, and scheduling the Settlement Hearing to, among other things, consider whether to grant final approval to the Settlement.