Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
The Company is a party to various claims, legal and regulatory proceedings, lawsuits and administrative actions arising in the ordinary course of business and associated with the Business Combinations. The Company carries general and professional liability insurance coverage to mitigate the Company’s risk of potential loss in such cases. An accrual is established when a specific contingency is probable and estimable. The Company also faces contingencies that are reasonably possible to occur that cannot currently be estimated. The Company believes that disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, net loss or cash flows. It is the Company’s policy to expense costs associated with loss contingencies, including any related legal fees, as they are incurred.
Books and Records Action
On April 19, 2021, two members of the P3 Board of Managers, Joseph Straus and Jonathan Bradburn, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Straus et al v. P3 Health Group Holdings, LLC, C.A. No. 2021-0335-JTL (the “Books and Records Action”). In the Books and Records Action, Straus and Bradburn sought an order requiring P3 to produce certain books and records relating to the process leading up to, and the approval of, the Business Combinations. On May 21, 2021, P3 filed its answer to the complaint in the Books and Records Action. P3 believes that it has produced all documents sought in the Books and Records Action. While the matter is pending, there are no outstanding requests associated with the Books and Records Action.
Hudson Class D Dispute
On June 11, 2021, Hudson Vegas Investment SPV, LLC (“Hudson”), a holder of P3’s Class D Units, filed an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Hudson Vegas Investments SPV, LLC v. Chicago Pacific Founders Fund, L.P., et al., C.A. No. 2021-0518-JTL (the “Hudson Action”), in which it challenged the Business Combinations. Specifically, Hudson purports to assert claims against P3, certain managers that were on the P3 Board of Managers, certain of its officers, and Chicago Pacific Founders Fund, L.P. (“CPF”) for breach of P3’s then-existing LLC agreement (the “LLC Agreement”) (against P3 and CPF), breach of fiduciary duty (against certain of P3’s officers) and breach of contract claims related to the then-existing LLC Agreement (against the P3 Board of Managers) in connection with the process leading up to, and approval of, the Business Combinations. In the Hudson Action, Hudson sought to enjoin the consummation of the Business Combinations and seeks a declaration that the Business Combinations violate its rights under the P3 then-existing LLC Agreement, a declaration that certain managers on the P3 Board of Managers and certain of P3’s officers breached their fiduciary duties, and money damages including attorneys’ fees.
On June 13, 2021, P3 filed an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned P3 Health Group Holdings, L.L.C. v. Hudson Vegas Investment SPV, LLC, C.A. No. 2021-0519-JTL (the “P3 Action”). In the P3 Action, P3 seeks: (i) a declaration that the Business Combinations do not violate Section 3.10 of P3’s Existing LLC Agreement; and (ii) reformation of a provision of P3’s Existing LLC Agreement. The P3 Action was consolidated with the Hudson Action. The combined cases are captioned In re P3 Health Group Holdings, L.L.C, C.A. No. 2021-0518-JTL.
On June 22, 2021, Hudson filed a motion for expedited proceedings in the Hudson Action in which it sought expedited discovery and a hearing on its motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the consummation of the Business Combinations. The defendants in the Hudson Action determined not to oppose Hudson’s motion for expedited proceedings and engaged in expedited discovery in advance of a preliminary injunction hearing that took place September 9, 2021.
On September 14, 2021, the Court of Chancery issued an oral ruling denying Hudson’s motion for preliminary injunction due to the lack of probability of success on the merits or, with respect to the Section 5.10 of the then-existing P3 LLC Agreement (the “Purchase Option”) only, lack of a showing of irreparable harm based on the condition that the escrow described below be created. In its ruling, the Court held that Hudson had not demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on its claims, except for its claim under the Purchase Option, which – if applicable – would allow Hudson to exercise an option to purchase additional equity interests in P3 in connection with the pending transaction with Foresight. With respect to the Purchase Option claim, the Court declined to address the merits and instead denied Hudson’s motion finding that Hudson failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. This ruling was made subject to the condition that Defendants memorialize their commitment to escrow, pending final resolution of this action, the consideration Hudson would be entitled to receive if it is determined that the Purchase Option can be validly exercised, in a stipulation filed with the Court. On September 17, 2021, Defendants filed a stipulation and proposed order regarding escrow which confirmed their commitment to do so and to cause the Payment Spreadsheet (as that term is defined in Section 2.01(f) of the Merger Agreement) to
52
Table of Contents
provide that such consideration will be directed to such escrow. The Court granted and entered the stipulation and proposed order on September 17, 2021.
The former members of P3 (other than Hudson) have agreed to indemnify the Company and P3 LLC following the Closing, for any damages, including reasonable attorney’s fees, arising out of matters relating to the dispute with Hudson.
On December 27, 2021, Hudson filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Verified Complaint. The proposed Amended Complaint contains certain of Hudson’s original claims and also adds additional claims, including bad faith breach of contract claims against certain of the former P3 Managers, an additional contractual claim against P3, and a tortious interference with contract claim against Foresight Acquisition Corp., Foresight Acquisition Corp. II, P3 Partners Inc., Sameer Mathur, and Greg Wasson. Defendants informed Hudson that they did not oppose the Motion for Leave to Amend the Verified Complaint, and on February 4, 2022, Hudson filed its Verified Amended Complaint.
On March 9, 2022, all Defendants moved to dismiss the Verified Amended Complaint. The briefing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was completed on May 17, 2022.
On March 25, 2022, Hudson served its Second Request for the Production of Documents directed to Defendants, and on April 14, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery and for Protective Order Pending Resolution of Motions to Dismiss (the “Motion to Stay”). Defendants served formal responses and objections to the Second Request for the Production of Documents on April 25, 2022. Hudson opposed the Motion to Stay on May 12, 2022. On July 13, 2022, the Court heard argument on both the Motions to Dismiss and the Motion to Stay and took the matters under advisement.
From September 12, 2022 and through November 7, 2022, the Court issued a series of Orders ruling on the Motions to Dismiss. Such Orders provided for the dismissal with prejudice of (i) Hudson’s claim to a Purchase Option and (ii) Hudson’s claim to a priority right to cash distributed as a result of the transactions; and (iii) the denial of each of the various Motions to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed by Mr. Leisure, Mr. Kazarian, Mr. Abdou, Mr. Bacchus, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Price, Ms. Glisson, and Mr. Leavitt (the “Manager Defendants”) with respect to Hudson’s claim for bad faith breach of contract under a variety of theories. The Court also granted in part and denied in part the Manager Defendants’ motion, permitting Hudson’s bad faith breach of contract claim to proceed against the Manager Defendants on certain theories, but dismissing other theories, including that the Manager Defendants committed a bad faith breach of contract by failing to act in good faith to facilitate the Purchase Option.
On November 7, 2022, the Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part the motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary claims against the officer Defendants, including Mr. Kazarian, Mr. Abdou, Mr. Bacchus, Ms. Glisson, and Ms. Puathasnanon. The Court allowed certain theories for these claims to survive the motion to dismiss, but it dismissed other theories for the claims, including that the officers “fail[ed] to engage in an adequate auction or sale process.” On November 9, 2022, the Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss the claim against Mr. Mathur for tortious interference with Hudson’s contract rights. The parties are now currently engaged in discovery on Hudson’s surviving claims.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not applicable.
53
Table of Contents
PART II
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.