Company: CTLPP
Filing Date: 2025-07-11
Form Type: PREM14A
Source: 0001140361-25-025663
Chunk: 76

Company: CANTALOUPE, INC.
Filing Date: 2025-07-11
Form: PREM14A
Chunk 76
---
oupe’s management and representatives of King & Spalding and J.P. Morgan present. Representatives of J.P. Morgan updated the Transaction Committee on the offers received from potential acquirors and the transaction process to date, including that Cantaloupe’s management and representatives of J.P. Morgan had discussed a sale of Cantaloupe with 36 potential acquirors, of which 27 were financial acquirors and nine were strategic acquirors. Cantaloupe’s management and representatives of J.P. Morgan then provided their preliminary view of the offers received from 365, Party C, Party D and Party B and Party I on June 10. Cantaloupe’s management and representatives of J.P. Morgan described to the Transaction Committee that the June 10 365 Proposal and the June 10 Party D Proposal had no material contingencies, while the June 10 Party C Proposal and the June 10 Party B Proposal had material contingencies and would require more time before Party C or Party B and Party I was prepared to sign definitive documentation, including, in the case of Party B and Party I, time required for Party B and Party I to obtain financing for a potential transaction.

Next, representatives of King & Spalding reviewed the draft merger agreements submitted by 365, Party D and Party C with their respective proposals. Representatives of King & Spalding compared the terms of the draft merger agreements submitted by 365, Party C and Party D, including terms related to the financing, remedies of the parties and certain regulatory matters, and how such terms of the merger agreements affected the timing and certainty of closing. Representatives of King & Spalding advised the Transaction Committee that the draft merger agreement with Party D had no material outstanding issues and that representatives of King & Spalding could quickly finalize the terms of the merger agreement with representatives of Party D’s outside counsel. Representatives of King & Spalding then advised the Transaction Committee that the draft merger agreement with 365 had limited material outstanding issues, including the length of the “end date” in the merger agreement after which the merger agreement could be terminated by either party if the transaction had not closed. Representatives of King & Spalding also advised the Transaction Committee that the draft merger agreement with Party C had many outstanding material issues, including related to the fact that Party C was offering, in part, consideration in the form of Party C’s stock.

Following discussion, the Transaction Committee determined that the June 10 365 Proposal and the June 10 Party D