IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Plaintiff, by his undersigned attorneys, for this complaint against defendants, alleges
upon personal knowledge with respect to himself, and upon information and belief based upon,
inter alia, the investigation of counsel as to all other allegations herein, as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 3, 2017 (the
“Proposed Transaction”), pursuant to which Alon USA Energy, Inc. (“Alon” or the “Company”)
will be acquired by Delek US Holdings, Inc. (“Parent”), which currently already owns
approximately 47% of the Company’s common stock, and its affiliates.
2. On January 2, 2017, Alon’s Board of Directors (the “Board” or “Individual
Defendants”) caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the “Merger
Agreement”) with Parent, Delek Holdco, Inc. (“Holdco”), Dione Mergeco, Inc. (“Parent Merger
JOSEPH ADLER, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALON USA ENERGY, INC., EZRA UZI
YEMIN, DAVID WIESSMAN, ZALMAN
SEGAL, RON W. HADDOCK, ILAN
COHEN, ASSAF GINZBURG, FREDEREC
GREEN, MARK D. SMITH, AVIGAL
SOREQ, WILLIAM KACAL, FRANKLIN
WHEELER, DELEK HOLDCO, INC.,
DELEK US HOLDINGS, INC., DIONE
MERGECO, INC., and ASTRO MERGECO,
INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. ______________
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CLASS ACTION
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 62298
2
Sub”), and Astro Mergeco, Inc. (“Astro Merger Sub,” and together with Parent, Holdco, and
Parent Merger Sub, “Delek”). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Delek will
acquire the remaining 53% of Alon common stock not already owned by Parent, and
shareholders of Alon will receive 0.5040 of a share of Parent common stock for each share of
Alon common stock. Based on the closing price of $24.07 per share of Parent common stock
on December 30, 2016, the last trading day before the public announcement of the signing of the
Merger Agreement, the value of the consideration payable to holders of Alon common stock
upon completion of the Proposed Transaction was approximately $12.13 per share.
3. On May 30, 2017, defendants filed a Definitive Proxy Statement (the “Proxy
Statement”) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.
4. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff
alleges herein that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the “1934 Act”) in connection with the Proxy Statement.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to Section 27
of the 1934 Act because the claims asserted herein arise under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
1934 Act and Rule 14a-9.
6. This Court has jurisdiction over defendants because each defendant is either a
corporation that conducts business in and maintains operations within this District, or is an
individual with sufficient minimum contacts with this District so as to make the exercise of
jurisdiction by this Court permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 62299
3
7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial portion of the
transactions and wrongs complained of herein occurred in this District.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant hereto, the
owner of Alon common stock.
9. Defendant Alon is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive
office at 12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 1600, Dallas, Texas 75251. Alon’s common stock is
traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “ALJ.”
10. Defendant Ezra Uzi Yemin (“Yemin”) has served as a director and Chairman of
the Board of Alon since May 2015. Yemin is also Chairman, President, and Chief Executive
Officer (“CEO”) of Parent.
11. Defendant David Wiessman (“Wiessman”) is a director of Alon. During the
process leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreement, Wiessman owned approximately
1% of Parent’s outstanding shares of common stock through his ownership in Bielsol
Investments (1987) Ltd. (“Bielsol”), a privately-owned Israeli company and shareholder of Alon
Israel Oil Company, Ltd. (“Alon Israel”), the beneficial owner of approximately 9.7% of
Parent’s outstanding shares of common stock. Wiessman was Chairman of the Special
Committee (defined below) of the Board.
12. Defendant Zalman Segal (“Segal”) has served as a director of Alon since July
2005. Segal was a member of the Special Committee.
13. Defendant Ron W. Haddock (“Haddock”) has served as a director of Alon since
December 2000. Haddock was a member of the Special Committee.
14. Defendant Ilan Cohen (“Cohen”) has served as a director of Alon since May
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 62300
4
2014. Cohen was a member of the Special Committee.
15. Defendant Assaf Ginzburg (“Ginzburg”) has served as a director of Alon since
May 2015. Ginzburg is also Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Parent.
16. Defendant Frederec Green (“Green”) has served as a director of Alon since May
2015. Green is also Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Parent.
17. Defendant Mark D. Smith (“Smith”) has served as a director of Alon since May
2015. Smith is also Executive Vice President of Parent.
18. Defendant Avigal Soreq (“Soreq”) has served as a director of Alon since May
2015. Soreq is also Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer of Parent.
19. Defendant William Kacal (“Kacal”) has served as a director of Alon since May
2016. Kacal was a member of the Special Committee. Kacal was recommended to the Alon
Board by Parent and Individual Defendant Yemin.
20. Defendant Franklin Wheeler (“Wheeler”) has served as a director of Alon since
May 2016. Wheeler was a member of the Special Committee. Wheeler was recommended to
the Alon Board by Parent and Individual Defendant Yemin.
21. The defendants identified in paragraphs 10 through 20 are collectively referred to
herein as the “Individual Defendants.”
22. Defendant Parent is a Delaware corporation and a party to the Merger Agreement.
23. Defendant Holdco is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.
24. Defendant Parent Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Holdco, and a party to the Merger Agreement.
25. Defendant Astro Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 62301
5
subsidiary of Holdco, and a party to the Merger Agreement.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
26. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action on behalf of himself and the other
public stockholders of Alon (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are defendants herein and
any person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with any defendant.
27. This action is properly maintainable as a class action.
28. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. As of
December 30, 2016, there were approximately 71,591,768 shares of Alon common stock
outstanding held by hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals and entities scattered throughout
the country.
29. Questions of law and fact are common to the Class, including, among others: (i)
whether defendants violated the 1934 Act; and (ii) whether defendants will irreparably harm
plaintiff and the other members of the Class if defendants’ conduct complained of herein
continues.
30. Plaintiff is committed to prosecuting this action and has retained competent
counsel experienced in litigation of this nature. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the
other members of the Class and plaintiff has the same interests as the other members of the
Class. Accordingly, plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class and will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the Class.
31. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would
create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish incompatible
standards of conduct for defendants, or adjudications that would, as a practical matter, be
dispositive of the interests of individual members of the Class who are not parties to the
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 62302
6
adjudications or would substantially impair or impede those non-party Class members’ ability to
protect their interests.
32. Defendants have acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the
Class as a whole, and are causing injury to the entire Class. Therefore, final injunctive relief on
behalf of the Class is appropriate.
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
Background of the Company and the Proposed Transaction
33. Alon is an independent refiner and marketer of petroleum products, operating
primarily in the South Central, Southwestern, and Western regions of the United States.
34. The Company owns 100% of the general partner and 81.6% of the limited partner
interests in Alon USA Partners, LP, which owns a crude oil refinery in Big Spring, Texas, with a
crude oil throughput capacity of 73,000 barrels per day and an integrated wholesale marketing
business.
35. In addition, Alon directly owns a crude oil refinery in Krotz Springs, Louisiana,
with a crude oil throughput capacity of 74,000 barrels per day. The Company also owns crude
oil refineries in California and a majority interest in a renewable fuels facility in California, with
a throughput capacity of 3,000 barrels per day.
36. Alon is a leading marketer of asphalt, which it distributes primarily through
asphalt terminals located predominately in the Southwestern and Western United States.
Moreover, the Company is the largest 7-Eleven licensee in the United States and operates
approximately 300 convenience stores which also market motor fuels in Central and West Texas
and New Mexico.
37. On May 14, 2015, Parent acquired approximately 33.7 million shares, or
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 62303
7
approximately 48% of the outstanding shares of Alon common stock, from Alon Israel (the
“2015 Acquisition”).
38. In connection with the 2015 Acquisition, Amit Ben Itzhak, Boaz Biran, Shraga
Biran, Yonel Cohen, and Mordehay Ventura each resigned from the Alon Board.
39. Five individuals affiliated with Delek – Individual Defendants Yemin, Ginzburg,
Green, Smith and Soreq – were then appointed to fill the vacancies on the Board. Yemin,
Chairman of the Alon Board, is also Chairman, President, and CEO of Parent. Ginzburg is an
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Parent. Green is an Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer of Parent. Smith is an Executive Vice President of Parent.
Additionally, Soreq is an Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer of Parent.
40. In May and August 2015, Parent held earnings conference calls and Individual
Defendant Yemin, in his capacity as Parent’s Chairman and CEO, responded to questions
regarding Parent’s intentions with respect to a potential acquisition of the remaining outstanding
shares of Alon common stock. During the conference calls, Yemin stated that Parent would
“need to think seriously” about acquiring the remainder of the Alon shares and that Parent was
“not in the business of holding 48% in a company.”
41. On July 31, 2015, in response to, among other things, Yemin’s public remarks
during the conference calls, the Board created a special committee of directors purportedly not
affiliated with Parent to respond to potential acquisition offers (the “Special Committee”).
42. On September 29, 2015, the Board determined that Individual Defendant
Wiessman would serve as the Chairman of the Special Committee, despite the fact that
Wiessman owned approximately 1% of Parent’s outstanding shares of common stock through his
ownership in Bielsol, a privately-owned Israeli company and shareholder of Alon Israel, the
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 62304
8
beneficial owner of approximately 9.7% of Parent’s outstanding shares of common stock.
43. On October 8, 2015, Wiessman contacted Yemin, in his capacity as CEO and
Chairman of Parent, and “inquired whether there was a transaction that Delek would contemplate
in the near term of which the Special Committee should be aware.”
44. On October 30, 2015, the Board “formally approved the formation of the Special
Committee” because “questions arose among the Alon Board members regarding the
establishment of the Special Committee.” The Proxy Statement fails to disclose the nature of
such question and who raised them.
45. Over the next several months, Yemin, in his capacity as CEO and Chairman of
Parent, and Wiessman met and discussed a potential transaction, and on December 23, 2015,
Alon and Parent entered into a confidentiality agreement.
46. On January 27, 2016, Yemin, in his capacity and CEO and Chairman of Parent,
and Wiessman met, and Yemin suggested that Kacal and Wheeler be appointed to the Alon
Board, who had been recommended to Parent. Kacal and Wheeler were elected to the Board on
May 3, 2016, and were appointed as members of the Special Committee.
47. On April 1, 2016, Wiessman sent a letter to Yemin outlining the terms of a
potential all-stock transaction with a 0.687x exchange ratio, indicating that “[w]e would expect
the combined company to have membership on the combined board of directors consistent with
the pro forma ownership that each group of shareholders would represent. Additionally, we are
committed to finding the best talent from our two management teams to run the combined
company, but would expect Ezra Uzi Yemin to be the combined company CEO.” Wiessman
sent a similar letter to Yemin on May 25, 2016.
48. On July 11, 2016, Alon issued a press release reporting that the Company formed
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 62305
9
the Special Committee and that the Special Committee retained J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
(“J.P. Morgan”) as its financial advisor.
49. On July 27, 2016, the Special Committee met with J.P. Morgan, which reported
that it received “a few incoming calls” after the July 11 press release was issued, noting that the
inquiries related to particular assets of Alon. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose the nature of
such inquiries, which assets they pertained to, whether J.P. Morgan or Alon responded to such
parties, and whether any proposals were made for such assets or the Company as a whole.
50. On October 14, 2016, Yemin sent a letter to Wiessman containing a proposal for
an all-stock transaction at a fixed exchange ratio of 0.44 Parent shares for each outstanding Alon
share.
51. On October 24, 2016, Wiessman met with Yemin, Ginzburg, and Green, in their
capacities as officers of Parent, to discuss the potential transaction. During the meeting,
Wiessman “raised with Mr. Yemin the prospect of Delek being willing to market Alon to third
parties,” but Yemin stated that “Delek was not contemplating the sale of the Alon shares owned
by Delek.”
52. Following subsequent meetings in December 2016, the parties agreed to an
exchange ratio of 0.504, and that in connection with the transaction, the Special Committee
could nominate one individual to the board of directors of Holdco and the board of directors of
the general partner of Delek Logistics Partners, LP (“Delek Logistics”).
53. On December 28, 2016, the Special Committee met and determined that “the
0.504 exchange ratio was a good result and that there did not appear to be any available
alternatives.”
54. The Board approved the Proposed Transaction on January 2, 2017, and the parties
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 62306
10
executed the Merger Agreement that day.
55. The Company’s officers and directors stand to receive significant benefits as a
result of the Proposed Transaction. For example, Individual Defendants Yemin, Ginzburg,
Green, Smith and Soreq will be officers of Holdco. Individual Defendant Wiessman will be
appointed to Holco’s board of directors, and Individual Defendant Haddock will be appointed to
Delek Logistics’ board of directors. Additionally, Individual Defendant Yemin may be
appointed as CEO of the combined company.
The Proxy Statement Omits Material Information, Rendering It False and Misleading
56. Defendants filed the Proxy Statement with the SEC in connection with the
Proposed Transaction.
57. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.
58. First, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the analyses
performed by Alon’s financial advisor, the Company’s financial projections, and Parent’s
financial projections.
59. With respect to J.P. Morgan’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for Alon, the
Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the calculated unlevered free cash flows for Alon for years
2017 through 2026; (ii) the definition of unlevered free cash flow; (iii) the constituent line items
used in calculating unlevered free cash flow; (iv) the range of terminal values of Alon; and (v)
J.P. Morgan’s basis for applying a perpetual growth rate ranging from 0.0% to 1.0%.
60. With respect to J.P. Morgan’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for Parent, the
Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the calculated unlevered free cash flows for Parent for
years 2017 through 2026; (ii) the definition of unlevered free cash flow; (iii) the constituent line
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 62307
11
items used in calculating unlevered free cash flow; (iv) the range of terminal values of Parent;
and (v) J.P. Morgan’s basis for applying a perpetual growth rate ranging from 0.0% to 1.0%.
61. With respect to J.P. Morgan’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis of the present
value of the “Synergies,” the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the estimated operational,
corporate, and commercial synergies; (ii) the estimated implementation costs; and (iii) J.P.
Morgan’s basis for using a range of discount rates from 9.5% to 11.5% and a perpetual growth
rate ranging from 0.0% to 1.0%.
62. With respect to Alon’s financial projections, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose:
(i) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics; (ii) income tax expense; (iii) interest and
financing costs; and (iv) stock-based compensation.
63. With respect to Parent’s financial projections, the Proxy Statement fails to
disclose: (i) income tax expense; (ii) interest and financing costs; and (iii) stock-based
compensation.
64. When a banker’s endorsement of the fairness of a transaction is touted to
shareholders, the valuation methods used to arrive at that opinion as well as the key inputs and
range of ultimate values generated by those analyses must also be fairly disclosed. Moreover,
the disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides stockholders with
a basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to
better understand the financial analyses performed by the company’s financial advisor in support
of its fairness opinion.
65. The omission of this material information renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, including, inter alia, the following sections of the Proxy Statement: (i) “Background
of the Mergers”; (ii) “Alon’s Reasons for the Transaction; Recommendations of the Special
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 62308
12
Committee and the Alon Board”; (iii) “Opinion of Financial Advisor to the Alon Special
Committee”; and (iv) “Certain Delek and Alon Unaudited Prospective Financial Information.”
66. Second, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding potential
conflicts of interest of the Company’s officers and directors, as well as the Special Committee’s
financial advisor, J.P. Morgan.
67. Specifically, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the timing and nature of all
communications regarding future employment and/or directorship of Alon’s officers and
directors, including who participated in all such communications.
68. Communications regarding post-transaction employment during the negotiation of
the underlying transaction must be disclosed to stockholders. This information is necessary for
stockholders to understand potential conflicts of interest of management and the Board, as that
information provides illumination concerning motivations that would prevent fiduciaries from
acting solely in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders.
69. Further, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the fact that, around the time Alon
entered into the Merger Agreement, J.P. Morgan held over 2 million shares of Parent common
stock. Since that time, J.P. Morgan has sold some Parent shares, but it still holds approximately
1.45 million shares of Parent (worth approximately $17.54 million based on the implied value of
the merger consideration on December 30, 2016), thus potentially giving J.P. Morgan an
incentive to support a deal that was more favorable to Delek.
70. The omission of this material information renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, including, inter alia, the following sections of the Proxy Statement: (i) “Background
of the Mergers”; (ii) “Alon’s Reasons for the Transaction; Recommendations of the Special
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 62309
13
Committee and the Alon Board”; (iii) “Interests of Alon’s Directors and Officers in the
Mergers;” and (iv) “Opinion of Financial Advisor to the Alon Special Committee”.
71. Third, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the background
of the Proposed Transaction. The Company’s stockholders are entitled to an accurate description
of the process the directors used in coming to their decision to support the Proposed Transaction.
72. For example, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the nature of the “questions
[that] arose among the Alon Board members regarding the establishment of the Special
Committee,” which prompted the Board to “formally approve” the Special Committee on
October 30, 2015, as well as who raised such questions.
73. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose the nature of the inquiries received by J.P.
Morgan as discussed at the July 27, 2016 Special Committee meeting, which assets the inquiries
pertained to, whether J.P. Morgan or Alon responded to such parties, and whether any proposals
were made for such assets or the Company as a whole.
74. Additionally, while the Proxy Statement provides that, “[p]rior to the execution of
the merger agreement, Mr. Wiessman disposed of his indirect ownership interests in Bielsol
Investments (1987) Ltd., and no longer owns, directly or indirectly, any shares of Delek common
stock,” the Proxy Statement fails to disclose when Wiessman disposed of such shares, his basis
for doing so, and the reasons Wiessman was appointed as Chairman of the Special Committee
despite such interests.
75. The omission of this material information renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, including, inter alia, the following sections of the Proxy Statement: (i) “Background
of the Mergers”; and (ii) “Alon’s Reasons for the Transaction; Recommendations of the Special
Committee and the Alon Board.”
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 62310
14
76. The above-referenced omitted information, if disclosed, would significantly alter
the total mix of information available to Alon’s stockholders.
COUNT I
Claim for Violation of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9 Promulgated
Thereunder Against the Individual Defendants and Alon
77. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
78. The Individual Defendants disseminated the false and misleading Proxy
Statement, which contained statements that, in violation of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act and
Rule 14a-9, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, omitted to state material
facts necessary to make the statements therein not materially false or misleading. Alon is liable
as the issuer of these statements.
79. The Proxy Statement was prepared, reviewed, and/or disseminated by the
Individual Defendants. By virtue of their positions within the Company, the Individual
Defendants were aware of this information and their duty to disclose this information in the
Proxy Statement.
80. The Individual Defendants were at least negligent in filing the Proxy Statement
with these materially false and misleading statements.
81. The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement are
material in that a reasonable stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on
the Proposed Transaction. In addition, a reasonable investor will view a full and accurate
disclosure as significantly altering the total mix of information made available in the Proxy
Statement and in other information reasonably available to stockholders.
82. The Proxy Statement is an essential link in causing plaintiff and the Company’s
stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction.
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 62311
15
83. By reason of the foregoing, defendants violated Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.
84. Because of the false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement, plaintiff
and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm.
COUNT II
Claim for Violation of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act
Against the Individual Defendants and Delek
85. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
86. The Individual Defendants and Delek acted as controlling persons of Alon within
the meaning of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as
officers and/or directors of Alon and participation in and/or awareness of the Company’s
operations and/or intimate knowledge of the false statements contained in the Proxy Statement,
they had the power to influence and control and did influence and control, directly or indirectly,
the decision making of the Company, including the content and dissemination of the various
statements that plaintiff contends are false and misleading.
87. Each of the Individual Defendants and Delek was provided with or had unlimited
access to copies of the Proxy Statement alleged by plaintiff to be misleading prior to and/or
shortly after these statements were issued and had the ability to prevent the issuance of the
statements or cause them to be corrected.
88. In particular, each of the Individual Defendants had direct and supervisory
involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Company, and, therefore, is presumed to have
had the power to control and influence the particular transactions giving rise to the violations as
alleged herein, and exercised the same. The Proxy Statement contains the unanimous
recommendation of the Individual Defendants to approve the Proposed Transaction. They were
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 62312
16
thus directly in the making of the Proxy Statement.
89. Delek also had direct supervisory control over the composition of the Proxy
Statement and the information disclosed therein, as well as the information that was omitted
and/or misrepresented in the Proxy Statement.
90. By virtue of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants and Delek violated Section
20(a) of the 1934 Act.
91. As set forth above, the Individual Defendants and Delek had the ability to
exercise control over and did control a person or persons who have each violated Section 14(a)
of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9, by their acts and omissions as alleged herein. By virtue of their
positions as controlling persons, these defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the 1934
Act. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff and the Class are
threatened with irreparable harm.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:
A. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Proposed Transaction;
B. In the event defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages;
C. Directing the Individual Defendants to disseminate a Proxy Statement that does
not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required in it
or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading;
D. Declaring that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the 1934 Act, as
well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder;
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 62313
17
E. Awarding plaintiff the costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
plaintiff’s attorneys’ and experts’ fees; and
F. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: June 13, 2017
By:
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
/s/ Brian D. Long
Seth D. Rigrodsky (#3147)
Brian D. Long (#4347)
Gina M. Serra (#5387)
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
(302) 295-5310
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 546 Filed 06/13/17 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 62314