In connection with the Transactions, on July 24, 2024, Scott Baker, a purported holder of Class B Common Stock, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") against NAI, Shari E. Redstone, Barbara M. Byrne, Linda M. Griego, Judith A. McHale, Charles E. Phillips, Jr., Susan Schuman, Skydance and David Ellison (the "Baker Action"). The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to Class B stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the Transaction Agreement, among other claims, and seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as well as other relief. On November 4, 2024, the Court granted the parties' stipulation in the Baker Action agreeing to (i) postpone briefing on motions to dismiss until the filing or designation of an operative complaint following the resolution of the plaintiff's motion to appoint him and the Baerlocher Family Trust, a purported holder of Class B Common Stock, as co-lead plaintiffs and Berger Montague PC as interim class counsel (the "Baker Leadership Motion"), and (ii) stay discovery until the resolution of any motions to dismiss any operative complaint following resolution of the Baker Leadership Motion. Throughout October 2024, various purported stockholders filed motions for intervention to oppose the Baker Leadership Motion. On December 31, 2024, the plaintiff, along with Mark Baerlocher, as trustee for the Baerlocher Family Trust, filed an amended complaint alleging the same breaches of fiduciary duties against the same defendants as in the original complaint.
Further, on April 30, 2024, a purported holder of Class B Common Stock filed a verified complaint for the inspection of books and records under Section 220 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "DGCL") in the Court against us, seeking the inspection of our books and records in order to investigate whether our Board of Directors, NAI, Shari E. Redstone and/or our executive officers may have breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders for alleged diversion of corporate opportunities (the "220 Action"). The magistrate judge held a trial on July 24, 2024 relating to the 220 Action and denied the request for the inspection of books and records. The plaintiff in the 220 Action noticed an exception to the Court, and on January 29, 2025, the Court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to obtain books and records that are both necessary and sufficient to fulfill the purpose of its request. On February 25, 2025, the Court granted an implementing order that returned the 220 Action to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on the scope of production. Certain other purported holders of Class B Common Stock and Class A Common Stock have delivered demand letters to investigate similar alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Transactions and are requesting the inspection of books and records. We have also received demand letters from purported holders of Class B Common Stock related to alleged omissions in New Paramount's registration statement on Form S-4.
Additionally, on August 20, 2024, LiveVideo.AI Corp. filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Shari E. Redstone, NAI, Christine Varney and Monica Seligman, alleging that defendants did not fairly consider its offer to purchase Paramount. The complaint asserts claims for unfair competition, tortious interference, unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, among others, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and other relief. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the defendants have not been served.
On December 30, 2024, a purported holder of Class B Common Stock and Class A Common Stock filed a complaint for the inspection of books and records under Section 220 of the DGCL (the "Section 220 Demand") in the Court against us to investigate possible breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Transactions. The complaint alleges that the documents produced to such purported stockholder thus far pursuant to the Section 220 Demand are insufficient to determine whether our officers, Board of Directors, Special Committee, NAI or Skydance breached their fiduciary duties (or aided and abetted such breaches). The complaint seeks an order requiring us to produce the documents identified in the Section 220 Demand, among other relief. Trial is scheduled for April 2025.
On February 4, 2025, New York City Employees' Retirement System, the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, the New York City Police Pension Fund, the New York City Board Of Education Retirement System, and the Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York, purported holders of Class B Common Stock and Class A Common Stock, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court against Barbara M. Byrne, Linda M. Griego, Judith A. McHale and Susan Schuman, which alleges breaches of fiduciary duties for their alleged failure to sufficiently consider an alternate offer that the plaintiffs claim is superior to the Transactions (the "NYCERS Action"). The plaintiffs argue that the no-shop provision in the Transaction Agreement should be declared invalid and unenforceable because it prevents the parties from engaging in further deal discussions and negotiations with companies other than Skydance, including, specifically, Project Rise Partners, after the no-shop period begins. The plaintiffs further assert that the Court has the power to invalidate this provision because Skydance allegedly aided and abetted NAI's and Shari E. Redstone's breach of fiduciary duties, including by agreeing to indemnify Shari E. Redstone (through Skydance's separate agreement with NAI) for any breach of fiduciary duty claims arising out of the Transactions up to a certain amount. Skydance, NAI, Shari E. Redstone and Paramount are not parties to the action. The NYCERS Action seeks, among other forms of relief, an order from the Court enjoining the closing of the Transactions until the Court has reached a final resolution on the plaintiffs' claims and an order compelling the Special Committee to evaluate Project Rise Partners' alternative offer to, among other things, acquire Class A Common Stock for $23.00 per share and Class B Common Stock for $19.00 per share. The Project Rise Partners offer was made after the go-shop period in the Transaction Agreement had ended. The complaint does not seek compensatory damages at this time. The plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings along with their complaint. On February 18, 2025, the plaintiffs moved to join Paramount and Skydance (and various other entities named in the Transaction Agreement) as necessary parties to the litigation and moved for a temporary restraining order preventing the closing of the Transactions until the Court considers the plaintiffs' anticipated motion for injunctive relief following expedited discovery. The same day, Project Rise Partners moved the Court to grant it leave to file an affidavit under seal. Oral argument on the plaintiffs' motion to expedite, motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for joinder, as well as Project Rise Partners' motion for leave to file an affidavit, is scheduled for March 3, 2025.