The $60 billion merger between Chevron and Hess has encountered significant turbulence as three lawsuits have been filed in the United States, raising concerns over the disclosure of key information related to the transaction.
The lawsuits, aimed at Hess, challenge the omission of crucial details in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These legal actions focus particularly on an April 26 filing intended to solicit proxies for a shareholder vote scheduled for May 28. The lawsuits seek to halt the merger until Hess rectifies the alleged disclosure deficiencies.
In response, Hess disclosed additional information in a regulatory filing on Tuesday, aiming to address the plaintiffs’ claims and minimize further complications. Despite this, Hess maintains that the claims are “without merit.”
Among the newly added details, Hess revealed that Chevron’s proposal included an invitation for Hess CEO John Hess to join Chevron’s board post-merger. The updated disclosures also provided more clarity on how the acquisition price was determined and specified the transaction-related fees.
Read more: Chevron Completes Acquisition of Renewable Energy Group
The legal battles are taking place across multiple jurisdictions: the Court of the Southern District of New York, the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
“All of the defendants named in the matters believe that the matters are without merit,” Hess stated. “However, litigation is inherently uncertain, and there can be no assurance regarding the likelihood that the defense of the actions will be successful.”
Furthermore, Hess acknowledged the possibility of additional lawsuits related to the merger and the proxy statement, noting that several purported stockholders have already sent demand letters alleging similar disclosure issues.
Source: Rig Zone
Featured News
Judge Allows FTC Antitrust Case Against Amazon to Move Forward
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
SAP Leader Urges Caution on EU AI Rules, Warns of Competitive Disadvantage
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado’s Grocery Workers Unite to Oppose $24.6 Billion Supermarket Merge
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Canada’s Competition Bureau Warns Businesses of Tougher Enforcement
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Top Antitrust Lawyers Launch New Boutique Firm
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh