<PAGE>
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No. )
Filed by the Registrant [ ]
Filed by Party other than the Registrant [x]
Check the appropriate box:
[ ] Preliminary Proxy Statement
[ ] Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule
14a-6(e)(2))
[] Definitive Proxy Statement
[x] Definitive Additional Materials
[ ] Soliciting Material Pursuant to Section 240.14a-11(c) or Section 240.14a-12
California Jockey Club
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
California Jockey Club Shareholders Committee
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
[ ] $125 per Exchange Act Rules 0-11(c)(1)(ii), 14a-6(i)(1), or 14a-6(i)(2) or
Item 22(a)(2) of Schedule 14A.
[x] $500 per each party to the controversy pursuant to Exchange Act Rule
14a-6(i)(3).
[ ] Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[x] Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
[ ] 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:
-----------------------------------------
<PAGE>
FROM: CALIFORNIA JOCKEY CLUB FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY
SHAREHOLDERS COMMITTEE
CONTACT: DAVID GJERDRUM
CALIFORNIA JOCKEY CLUB
SHAREHOLDERS COMMITTEE
(415) 813-0912
THOMAS LORAN
PILLSBURY MADISON & SUTRO LLP
(415) 983-1865
CALIFORNIA JOCKEY CLUB SHAREHOLDERS COMMITTEE PREVAILS AS
BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS REJECT THE COMPANY'S
EFFORTS TO AVOID ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
San Francisco, August 23, 1996. . . .The California Jockey Club
Shareholders Committee has prevailed in legal proceedings commenced by
California Jockey Club (AMEX: CJ) in both state and federal court to prevent
shareholders supporting the Committee from exercising their franchise to vote
for directors on August 30, 1996.
In an after hours court session conducted on Wednesday evening, August 21,
1996, Federal District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker denied a request by CJC's
lawyers for accelerated discovery in support of a motion to restrain the
Committee from voting proxies at the court-ordered meeting of shareholders to be
held on August 30. The Judge ruled that CJC had presented insufficient evidence
to justify potential disruption of the shareholder vote. On the following
morning, August 22, 1996, the San Mateo County Superior Court denied CJC's
motion for a two-week continuance of the court-ordered shareholders meeting.
These two court rulings clear the way for the election of directors by CJC
shareholders on August 30 in accordance with the judgment that the Committee
obtained against CJC management in San Mateo Superior Court.
Ron Volkman, a member of the Committee and one of the Committee's nominees
for election to the Board of Directors, commented as follows:
"We are pleased that the Courts have rejected these last-ditch attempts by
CJC management to avoid a shareholder vote. Based on the expressions of support
that the Committee already has received, we look forward to the CJC shareholder
election of directors next week."
# # #
