Company: SONM
Filing Date: 2025-11-24
Form Type: PREM14A
Source: 0001493152-25-024848
Chunk: 79

Company: SONIM TECHNOLOGIES INC
Filing Date: 2025-11-24
Form: PREM14A
Chunk 79
---
 agreed to include a non-exclusivity provision, requiring the Company only to keep [Party X] reasonably informed of alternative negotiations.

On August 18, 2025, the Company also executed an NDA with Party 8. That evening, Party 8, through Roth Capital, delivered a letter of intent draft. The draft contemplated a change in control structure, lacked a synergistic business model and continuity of business, and contained terms more aggressive than those contemplated by the [Party X] letter of intent.

On the evening of August 18, 2025, the Company, through Roth Capital, provided Party 8 with a revised LOI including terms on exclusivity, PIPE financing, advisory warrant vesting, governance, potential employee change-in-control waiver limitations, and expense caps. The Company’s proposed revisions were rejected.

On August 19, 2025, the Company’s management, Roth Capital, Venable, Party 8, and its counsel virtually met to attempt to reconcile the differences in the approach to the letter of intent draft. Party 8 rejected all of the Company’s proposed revisions, insisted on exclusivity, and conditioned discussions on termination or cardinal amendment of the Asset Purchase Agreement not to sell the entirety of the Legacy Business, guarantees of the Company never qualifying as a shell company, and informal understanding in connection board-level director resignations.

On the evening of August 19, 2025, the board met and determined that, despite Party 8’s projections, the risks outweighed the benefits, including legal uncertainty and the impact of terminating the Asset Purchase Agreement. Roth Capital’s analysis indicated that even if Party 8’s projections were realized, the value delivered to stockholders would not equal that provided under the Asset Purchase Agreement. The board determined that proceeding with the Asset Purchase Agreement was the optimal course and it would not change its recommendation. The board also noted that the time to consider any RTO strategy was running out due to the RTO timeline constraints and that the board should focus on a continuation of the Company’s business through a PIPE transaction rather than pursue an RTO strategy. The board determined, however, that it would not announce the change in strategy publicly.

Later that evening, the Company executed an LOI with [Party X]. The Company determined a strategy, which did not involve a change of control or RTO, reduced execution risk, and created a new line of business. With that, the Company terminated its RTO candidates search and focused on exploring the new opportunities.

On August 29, 202