Legal Proceedings Regarding the Merger with CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
As previously disclosed, on April 21, 2018, Vectren Corporation, an Indiana corporation (the Company), CenterPoint Energy,
Inc., a Texas corporation (Parent) and Pacer Merger Sub, Inc., an Indiana corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub), entered into a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement).
Subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving such merger (the Merger).
On July 16, 2018, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement (the Proxy Statement) with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) for the solicitation of proxies in connection with the special meeting of the Companys shareholders (the Shareholders) to be held on August 28, 2018, to consider and vote on a proposal to approve
the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the Merger.
As previously disclosed, seven purported
shareholders of the Company filed lawsuits in July 2018 under the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana challenging the accuracy of the disclosures made in the Companys Proxy Statement
in connection with the Merger. These cases were captioned Kuebler v. Vectren Corp., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00113-RLY-MPB
(S.D. Ind.) (the Kuebler Action), Danigelis v. Vectren
Corp., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00114-RLY-MPB
(S.D. Ind.) (the Danigelis
Action), Scarantino v. Vectren Corp., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00115-RLY-MPB
(S.D.
Ind.) (the Scarantino Action), Stein v. Vectren Corp., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00117-RLY-MPB
(S.D. Ind.) (the Stein Action), Nisenshal v. Vectren
Corp., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00121-RLY-MPB
(S.D. Ind.) (the Nisenshal
Action), VonSalzen v. Vectren Corp., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00122-RLY-MPB
(S.D.
Ind.) (the VonSalzen Action), and Kent v. Vectren Corp., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-02263-SEB-TAB
(S.D. Ind.) (the Kent Action). All seven actions
alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9
promulgated thereunder based on various alleged omissions of material information from the Proxy Statement.
On July 10, 2018, the plaintiffs in the Kuebler Action and in the Danigelis Action filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin the Company from consummating the Merger. On August 8, 2018, the court set the motion for preliminary injunction for hearing on August 15, 2018. On August 10, 2018, the court entered an order consolidating the seven cases and
named as lead plaintiff the group of Michael Kuebler, James Danigelis, and Michael Nisenshal, and named as lead counsel the group of Monteverde & Associates P.C., Ademi & OReilly, LLP, Weiss Law LLP, and Shartzer Law Firm,
LLC. On August 15, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action.
On August 15, 2018, the court held a
hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction in the consolidated action. On August 22, 2018, the court issued an order denying Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in the consolidated action.