Form 425 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORP Submitted by: CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORP

0

As previously reported, on July 25, 2021, Capstead Mortgage Corporation, a Maryland company (?? Capstead ??), entered into an Agreement and Merger Plan, as amended in accordance with this First Amendment to the Agreement and Plan merger, dated effective September 22, 2021 (as amended, the ?? Merger Agreement ??), with Benefit Street Partners Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland company (?? BSPRT ??), Rodeo Sub I, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of BSPRT (?? Merger Sub ??), and Benefit Street Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (?? BSPRT Advisor? ?), whereby, subject to the terms and conditions contained therein, Capstead will merge with and into Merger Sub, Merger Sub remaining a wholly owned subsidiary of BSPRT (this transaction, the “Merger”). On September 7, 2021, Capstead and BSPRT respectively filed a definitive proxy / prospectus (the ?? Definitive Proxy Statement ??) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the ?? SEC ??) for the solicitation of proxies in connection with the extraordinary meeting of ordinary shareholders of Capstead, to be held on October 15, 2021, to vote on matters relating to the Merger. On September 23, 2021, Capstead and BSPRT respectively filed a supplement to the definitive proxy statement (as completed, the “proxy statement ??”) regarding the First Amendment to the Agreement and the Merger Plan.

Five legal actions have been brought by purported shareholders of Capstead in connection with the Merger. The first costume, designed as Shiva Stein v. Capstead Mortgage Corporation, et al., No. 1: 21-cv-7306 (the ?? Stein Lawsuit ??), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 31, 2021, and is making claims against Capstead, members of the Board of Directors of Capstead (the ?? Capstead Council ??), BSPRT and Merger Sub. The second costume, designed as Matthew Hopkins v. Capstead Mortgage Corporation, et al., No. 1: 21-cv-07369 (the ?? Hopkins Lawsuit ??), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 1, 2021, and is making claims against Capstead, Capstead Board Members, BSPRT , Merger Sub and BSPRT Advisor. The third costume, designed as Bryan Harrington v. Capstead Mortgage Corporation, et al., N ° 1: 21-cv-05080 (the ?? Harrington Lawsuit ??), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on September 11, 2021, and is making claims against Capstead and members of the board of directors of Capstead. The fourth costume, designed as Randy Gill v. Capstead Mortgage Corporation, et al., No. 1: 21-cv-07973 (the ?? Gill Lawsuit ??), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 24, 2021, and is making claims against Capstead and members of the board of directors of Capstead. The fifth costume, designed as Jordan Wilson v. Capstead Mortgage Corporation, et al., No. 1: 21-cv-08147-UA (the ?? Wilson Lawsuit ??), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 1, 2021, and is making claims against Capstead and members of the board of directors of Capstead.

Capstead has also received formal notices from two purported shareholders, Brett Braafhart and Angelo Fisichella, threatening to assert claims against Capstead and the members of the Capstead Board (these notices, as well as the Stein trial, the Hopkins trial, the Harrington trial, the Gill trial and the Wilson trial, the “Lawsuits”).

Each of the lawsuits allege that some of the disclosures in the power of attorney statement are deficient and seek a preliminary remedy and injunction. Although Capstead believes that the disclosures set out in the proxy statement are fully in accordance with applicable law, in order to meet certain requests for disclosure in lawsuits, to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainty inherent in litigation, to To avoid nuisance and to prevent any efforts to delay the completion of the Merger, Capstead has decided to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement with the additional information set out below (the “Additional Information”). Nothing in the Additional Disclosures should be taken as an admission of liability, wrongdoing or legal merit, necessity or significance under applicable law of any of the disclosures set forth herein. Rather, Capstead considers the claims raised in the Lawsuits to be without merit and expressly denies all of the allegations in the Lawsuits, including that further disclosure was or is required.

Additional information to the proxy statement

The following additional information should be read in conjunction with the proxy statement, which should be read in its entirety. All page references are to the pages of the definitive proxy statement, and terms used below, unless otherwise defined, have the meanings specified in the proxy statement. Underlined text shows text added to a disclosure referenced in the proxy statement.


Source link

Share.

Leave A Reply