UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934
Filed by the Registrant þ
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant o
Check the appropriate box:
o |
|
Preliminary Proxy Statement |
o |
|
Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) |
o |
|
Definitive Proxy Statement |
þ |
|
Definitive Additional Materials |
o |
|
Soliciting Material Under Rule 14a-12 |
PECO II, INC.
(Name of Registrant as
Specified in its Charter)
(Name of Person(s)
Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
þ |
|
No fee required. |
o |
|
Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. |
|
(1) |
|
Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) |
|
Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act
Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was
determined): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4) |
|
Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5) |
|
Total fee paid: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
o |
|
Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. |
|
o |
|
Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2)
and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the
previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its
filing. |
|
(1) |
|
Amount Previously Paid: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) |
|
Filing Party: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4) |
|
Date Filed: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PECO II, INC.
PROXY STATEMENT SUPPLEMENT
For the
SPECIAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS
To be held on April 15, 2010
This Proxy Statement Supplement supplements the Proxy Statement, dated March 18, 2010 (the
Proxy Statement), previously made available to our shareholders in connection with the
solicitation by our board of directors of proxies to be voted at a Special Meeting of PECO II, Inc.
Shareholders at St. Josephs Activity Center, 135 North Liberty Street, Galion, Ohio, on Thursday,
April 15, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. local time, for the following purposes:
|
1. |
|
To consider and vote upon a proposal to adopt the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of February 18, 2010, by and among PECO II, Inc., Lineage Power Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (Lineage), and Lineage Power Ohio Merger Sub, Inc., an Ohio
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lineage, and the merger. |
|
|
2. |
|
To consider and vote on a proposal to adjourn the special meeting, if necessary or
appropriate, to solicit additional proxies in the event that there are not sufficient votes
at the time of the special meeting to adopt the merger agreement and the merger. |
When used in this Proxy Statement Supplement, the terms Company, Our, and PECO II refer to
PECO II, Inc.
The purpose of this Proxy Statement Supplement is to provide additional information about the
Background to the Merger discussed on pages 18-22 of the Proxy Statement.
The board of directors preferred the $5.86 all cash offer that it received from Lineage on
November 18, 2009 to the all cash offer of that same amount it received from Party D on that same
date principally because it believed that Lineages offer was more likely to lead to a completed
transaction than the offer from Party D. The board of directors based this belief on several
considerations, including:
|
|
|
Lineage had a demonstrated ability to complete the acquisition of a publicly-traded
target company, as evidenced by its acquisition of Cherokee International in November 2008; |
|
|
|
|
PECO II had entered into a supply agreement in March 2009 to purchase rectifiers,
converters and other key product components from Lineage, and the board of directors
therefore believed that the merger was more strategic to Lineage than to Party D; |
|
|
|
|
Lineage had the substantial financial backing of the Gores Group and its offer contained
no financing contingency, which further supported the view of the board of directors that
Lineage would be in a position to close a merger with PECO II on the terms offered by
Lineage; and |
|
|
|
|
Party Ds prior offers had been more complicated and subject to price adjustments, which
led the board of directors to believe that Party Ds offer would more likely be subject to
renegotiation prior to the signing of a merger agreement, whether as a result of due
diligence or otherwise. |
In addition, when Party Ds oral offer of $5.86 per share was received, PECO II was already in the
process of negotiating a confidentiality, exclusivity and standstill agreement with Lineage (which
Lineage had previously requested as a condition to proceed with due diligence). Lineage was,
therefore, further along in the process than Party D. Lineage stated on November 18, 2009 that it
would increase its offer from $5.70 per share to $5.86 per share and no further. Accordingly, the
board of directors believed that it would risk the loss of Lineage as a merger party if PECO II
failed to pursue matters promptly with Lineage. PECO II and Lineage executed the confidentiality,
exclusivity and standstill agreement the same day. After being informed by the Company of the
foregoing decision by the board of directors, Party D did not then propose to increase its offer.
During the exclusivity period, from November 18, 2009 to the signing of the merger agreement
on February 18, 2010, Party D communicated to PECO II that if the Lineage offer did not result in a
definitive merger agreement that Party D was prepared to negotiate a transaction with PECO II based
on the terms of its last offer, but Party D did not express any willingness to pay more than $5.86
per share for the Company. During that time, two other parties that had been contacted during the
sales process early in 2009 (but not made any offer to acquire the Company) made inquiries about
the status of the sale process and requested information. Both of these parties were informed that
the Company was under an exclusivity agreement and could not provide the requested information.
Neither of those two parties provided any offer for the Company or made any further communications
with the Company.
There are no other additions to any other parts of the Proxy Statement.