Company: SONM
Filing Date: 2025-06-18
Form Type: DEFC14A
Source: 0001641172-25-015578
Chunk: 22

Company: SONIM TECHNOLOGIES INC
Filing Date: 2025-06-18
Form: DEFC14A
Chunk 22
---
 and an injunction prohibiting enforcement of certain provisions of Sonim’s Bylaws in connection with the Notice. Orbic and AJP also filed a motion for expedited proceedings with the Complaint.

On April 30, 2025, AJP, Orbic, and related parties filed a preliminary proxy statement soliciting votes for the Orbic Nominees.

On May 2, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the motion for expedited proceedings.

On May 11, 2025, the Board determined it was advisable and in the best interests of Sonim to waive the deficiency in the Notice rather than to engage in a protracted litigation. On the same day, Sonim’s counsel notified Orbic’s counsel of the same.

On May 12, 2025, the Company’s counsel sent an e-mail to the Orbic Group, providing the Orbic Group with the required notification of the Company’s nominees for election at the Annual Meeting, pursuant to Rule 14a-19(d) under the Exchange Act.

On May 16, 2025, Sonim produced the stocklist materials requested in the 220 Demand.

That same day, Orbic submitted a revised, preliminary, and conditional non-binding proposal (the “Second Orbic Proposal”) to acquire Sonim for $1.81 per share in cash. The Second Orbic Proposal included a letter of interest from Capstone Project Finance, LLC, marked “confidential,” which was preliminary, non-binding, subject to extensive conditions, and dated as of April 11, 2025 (well before Orbic’s formal submission).

On May 19, 2025, following a review of publicly available information regarding Orbic’s financial condition, the Special Committee concluded that Orbic had failed to demonstrate the financial wherewithal to consummate the Second Orbic Proposal and communicated to Orbic as such. The Special Committee also informed Orbic that it observed that the proposal was replete with criticisms of the Special Committee and Board and offered little substantive information in connection with the transaction proposed by Orbic. The Special Committee replied that it determined that the Second Orbic Proposal was not a genuine effort to engage in constructive negotiations but rather a tactical maneuver to further Orbic’s proxy campaign, and expressed its disappointment with Orbic’s conduct.

On June 2, 2025, we, AJP,
Orbic and the Director Defendants entered into a Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to which AJP and Orbic dismissed the Complaint without