The following information was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2020
by InnerWorkings, Inc. on Form 8-K (Item 8.01 Other Events):
Litigation Related to the Merger.
As previously disclosed, on July 15, 2020, InnerWorkings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among HH Global Group Limited, a company registered in England and Wales (Parent), HH Global Finance Limited, a company registered in England and Wales (HH Finance) and Project Idaho
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Sub), and the Company (as amended from time to time, the Merger Agreement). The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things, Sub to merge
with and into the Company, causing the Company to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the Merger).
Lawsuits relating
to the merger were filed on August 14, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, August 17, 2020 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, August 20, 2020 in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York and in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, August 25, 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, August 26, 2020 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and September 4, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuits, filed by purported stockholders of the Company, are captioned Bollur v. InnerWorkings,
Inc., et. al., No. 1:20-cv-06452, filed as an individual action (the Bollur Lawsuit), Khan v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et. al., No. 653867/2020, filed as a putative class action on behalf of the stockholders of
the Company (the Khan Lawsuit), Lee v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et. al., No. 1:20-cv-03812, filed as an individual action (the Lee Lawsuit), Stein v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et. al., No. 1:20-cv-01095-UNA, filed as an individual action (the Stein Lawsuit), Franchi v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et. al., No. 1:20-cv-01114-UNA, filed as a putative class action on behalf of the stockholders of the Company (the Franchi Lawsuit), Hinden v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et. al., No. 1:20-cv-06892, filed as an individual action (the Hinden Lawsuit) and Altamirano v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et. al., No.
1:20-cv-07268, filed as an individual action (the Altamirano Lawsuit). The Bollur, Lee, Stein, Franchi, Hinden and Altamirano Lawsuits allege that the
preliminary proxy statement filed on August 10, 2020 (or, in the case of the Franchi, Hinden and Altamirano Lawsuits, the definitive proxy statement filed on August 21, 2020), relating to the transactions contemplated by the merger
agreement, omitted material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and certain rules promulgated thereunder. The Khan Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Companys directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the merger. The lawsuits name as defendants the Company and its directors and seek, among other relief, injunctive relief. There can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits.
The Company believes that the claims asserted by the plaintiffs are without merit. However, in order to moot the plaintiffs
unmeritorious disclosure claims, alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide additional information to its stockholders, the Company has determined to voluntarily supplement the definitive proxy statement filed on
August 21, 2020 (the Definitive Proxy Statement) as described in this Current Report on Form 8-K; plaintiffs agree that the supplemental disclosures moot their claims and have agreed to
withdraw their complaints and demands, respectively, upon the filing of this Current Report on Form 8-K. Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, the Company specifically denies all allegations by the plaintiffs that any additional disclosure was or is required.
Supplemental Disclosures.
The following
disclosures supplement the disclosures contained in the Definitive Proxy Statement and should be read in conjunction with the disclosures contained in the Definitive Proxy Statement, which should be read in its entirety. To the extent the
information set forth herein differs from or updates information contained in the Definitive Proxy Statement, the information set forth herein shall supersede or supplement the information in the Definitive Proxy Statement. All page references are
to pages in the Definitive Proxy Statement, and terms used below, unless otherwise defined, have the meanings set forth in the Definitive Proxy Statement.
The fourth and fifth sentences of the fourth full paragraph on page 37 under the header Background of the Merger of the Definitive Proxy
Statement are hereby amended and restated as follows:
In addition, each of the confidentiality agreements (other than the agreement with Party C)
prohibited the counterparty from requesting that the Company (or the Board or the Companys representatives) amend, waive, grant any consent or otherwise not enforce any provision of the standstill provision. However, each
confidentiality agreement (including the confidentiality agreement with Party C) permitted the counterparty to make unsolicited private proposals to the Board from and after the time the Company entered into a definitive agreement to engage
in a change of control transaction.