Piedmont Office Realty Trust Case 10/25/2007

To have your information reviewed for options and to recieve notifications about this case, please use this form. You may also send an email to mail@shareholdersfoundation.com, or call us at (858) 779-1554.
Company Name(s): 
Piedmont Office Realty Trust
Case Name: 
Piedmont Office Realty Trust Case 10/25/2007
Case Status: 
Lawsuit filed
Affected Securities
OTC: POFR
Lawsuit Overview
Type of Lawsuit: 
Shareholder Class Action
Date Filed: 
10/25/2007
Class Period Begin: 
05/25/2007
Class Period End: 
10/16/2007
Court of Filing: 
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Summary: 

According to a press release dated October 26, 2007, a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against nominal defendant Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. (f/k/a Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.) and certain Individual Defendants , on behalf of: (a) a Class of all persons who were entitled to tender their shares pursuant to the Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO under Section 14(d)(1) or 13(e)(1) of the Exchange Act, filed by Lex-Win Acquisition, LLC (”Lex-Win”) on May 25, 2007, as Amended or Supplemented, and who suffered harm as a result of the actions complained of herein (”Tender Offer Class”); and (b) on behalf of a Class of all persons who are entitled to vote on the Final Proxy that was disseminated to investors, pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act on October 16, 2007 (”Proxy Class”).
The Complaint in this companion suit charges defendants with violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (”Exchange Act”) and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder. In addition, by virtue of the defendants’ conduct, the Complaint alleges that defendants have also breached their fiduciary duties owed to the proposed Classes.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges, among other things, that:
(1) On May 23, 2007, Piedmont filed a Form S-11 Registration Statement with the SEC announcing the Company’s intention to apply to list its stock on the New York Stock Exchange (”Listing”) and to conduct an underwritten offering of up to $345 million of its stock (”Underwritten Offering”). The Listing and Underwritten Offering have not yet occurred.
(2) In response to a Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO under Section 14(d)(1) or 13(e)(1) of the Exchange Act filed on May 25, 2007 by Lex-Win, an unaffiliated third party seeking to purchase approximately 5.2% of the outstanding shares of Piedmont at $9.00 net per share, on June 8, 2007 (”May 25 Lex-Win Tender Offer”), Piedmont filed a Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement under Section 14(d)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (”Schedule 14D-9″) responding to the Lex-Win Tender Offer and recommending that the Company’s stockholders reject the May 25 Lex-Win Tender Offer and not tender their shares to the offerors. The recommendation to reject the May 25 Lex-Win Tender Offer was largely based on “the current business plan in effect for the future of the Company as disclosed in the May 23 Registration, including a potential listing of its shares of common stock on a national exchange” and “the Board’s belief that the timing of the Offer is intended to take advantage of any potential increase in the value of the Company’s shares associated with a possible listing and trading of the Company’s shares on a national exchange.”
(3) In response to Lex-Win’s supplement to its May 25 Tender Offer increasing the offer price to $9.30 per share and increasing the number of shares sought to 9.3% of the outstanding shares of the Company (”Revised Tender Offer”), on June 18, 2007 Piedmont filed with the SEC its Amendment No. 1 to its Schedule 14D-9, responding to the Revised Offer and recommending to Piedmont shareholders that they reject the Revised Offer (”Amended Response”). The Amended Response omitted any reference to the May 23 Registration Statement or the potential listing as reasons for recommending against the Revised Tender Offer.
(4) On July 20, 2007, the Lex-Win Tender Offer (collectively, the May 25 Lex-Win Tender Offer and Revised Tender Offer are referred to as “Lex-Win Tender Offer”) expired. During the time that the Lex-Win Tender Offer was open and pending, the Individual Defendants knew or wrongfully disregarded that the listing of Piedmont’s stock on a national securities exchange was highly unlikely. As of June 18, when the Company filed its Amended Response to the Revised Tender Offer, completely eliminating any reference to the May 23 Registration Statement or the prospective listing in providing the reasons for its recommendation against tendering, the Board had already determined that the Underwritten Offering and listing were not likely to occur. The Board failed to supplement or amend its 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement to disclose this material fact that would have been important to an investor in determining whether to tender his shares.
(5) On October 16, 2007, Piedmont filed a Schedule 14A Proxy Statement pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act (”Final Proxy”), stating that it was delaying the listing and seeking shareholder approval of an extension of the Charter-mandated Liquidity Deadline from January 30, 2008 to July 30, 2009, and to provide the board of directors with the discretionary authority to extend the Liquidity Deadline further from July 30, 2009 to January 30, 2011, without further shareholder action. The Complaint asserts that the Final Proxy is false and misleading because, among other things, it states that a recent decline in the REIT market and the so-called credit crunch were the reasons for the proposed extension. In fact, these economic conditions are not only misrepresented, but they are nothing but a subterfuge since the Director Defendants had abandoned the idea of a 2007 listing by the time they filed their June 18 Amended Response to the Lex-Win Tender Offer.
(6) The Individual Defendants owe fiduciary duties to the Classes, which were breached by: (a) failing to recommend that in light of the unlikelihood of a timely listing and the absence of other viable liquidity options, the Lex-Win Tender Offer constituted a reasonable and prudent exit strategy that shareholders should seriously consider as a liquidity option; (b) failing, in the Schedule 14D-9, to fully inform the stockholders about the likelihood of a liquidity event and utilizing their fiduciary position to recommend against tendering shares in order to retain control over the Company; (c) failing to determine whether the extension of the Liquidity Deadline is in the best interest of the shareholders; (d) placing their own personal self-interests above the Class members’ best interests, and by seeking to conceal their fiduciary failures by means of a false and misleading Final Proxy and related proxy materials; and (e) by disseminating materially false and misleading proxy materials.