Proceeding with Fair Access to Dell Investor Information
Bypassing the Litigation Trap
Dell Responsibility for Management Disclosures
Following up on my March 15, 2013
letter to Dell, I sent the company’s legal officer another letter
at the end of business yesterday confirming that the Shareholder Forum
will simply revise the statements in its demand for records to
accommodate Dell’s unusual views of the formal requirements. The
letter also refers to recent news reports that suggest a need for Dell
assurances of responsibility for public disclosures.
The text of the letter is copied
below.
Bypassing the
Litigation Trap
The Forum’s
accommodation of Dell’s argued views of statement requirements will
require only some editing of a letter, so that we can be ready to
proceed within a few days. The conventional path of taking the
argument to court, even if it is assumed certain that the court would
support the Forum’s demand, could take several weeks and would cost
the company – and its shareholders – considerably more than the
planned editing of a letter.
This practical path around the litigation trap will not prevent us
from seeking court enforcement if the editing accommodation is
rejected.
Dell Responsibility for Management Disclosures
Two recent news reports of apparent management leaks that had been
distributed to Forum participants (see the letter’s
footnote) raised
concerns about the possibility of recurrences that could confuse our
planned review and reporting process.
While
it is not appropriate for the Forum to address regulatory issues, it
is very important to maintain the integrity of our project. In this
context, we will be asking Dell to provide assurances of their
responsibility for appropriate reporting of any disclosures by company
representatives, whether authorized or not.
Your questions and comments will be welcomed.
GL – March 19, 2013
Gary Lutin
Chairman, The Shareholder Forum
575 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022
Tel: 212-605-0335
Email:
gl@shareholderforum.com
[letterhead of The Shareholder Forum]
March 18, 2013
By email
Ms. Janet B. Wright
Vice President – Corporate,
Securities & Finance Counsel
Dell Inc.
One Dell Way, RR1-33
Round Rock, Texas 78682
Re:
Demands for records
Dear Ms. Wright:
Not having heard from you in response to Friday’s invitation to
develop a collaborative process, I will be preparing a revised
letter to accommodate your views of DGCL Section 220 statement
requirements for proceeding with the formal records demand. This
accommodation is intended to be a simpler and faster alternative
to seeking a court’s clarification of what is required, and I
therefore ask that you tell me by tomorrow if you have any other
views I should consider in preparing the revised letter.
Your advice of any related matters to be considered in the revised
letter will also be appreciated. For example, a draft of your
proposed confidentiality agreement will be especially helpful to
assure the revised letter’s conformance with expected provisions.
On issues relating to
confidentiality, I will want Dell to assure us that it will assume
full responsibility for any disclosures made by its own
representatives. Friday’s coincidental reports by two different
news organizations of unidentified “sources” of non-public
information
raised concerns about possible disruptions of the Forum’s review
process. Our confidentiality agreement should require Dell’s
appropriate reporting of any such management leaks, whether
authorized or not, to assure fair public disclosure and SEC review
of what may be considered proxy solicitation material.
Sincerely yours,
/s
Gary Lutin
cc: S. Mark Hurd, Esquire
William D. Regner, Esquire
Gregory P. Williams, Esquire
|
|