<PAGE>
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
------------------
SCHEDULE 14D-1/A
TENDER OFFER STATEMENT
(AMENDMENT NO. 4)
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 14(d)(1) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
BRC HOLDINGS, INC.
(NAME OF SUBJECT COMPANY)
------------------
ACS ACQUISITION CORPORATION
AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.
(BIDDERS)
------------------
COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $.10 PER SHARE
(TITLE OF CLASS OF SECURITIES)
------------------
227174-10-9
(CUSIP NUMBER OF CLASS OF SECURITIES)
DAVID W. BLACK
ACS ACQUISITION CORPORATION
2828 NORTH HASKELL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75204
(214) 841-6152
(NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO
RECEIVE NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS ON BEHALF OF BIDDERS)
COPY TO:
DAVID G. LUTHER, JR., ESQ.
HUGHES & LUCE, L.L.P.
1717 MAIN STREET
SUITE 2800
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201
(214) 939-5500
------------------
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>
Page 2 of 4 Pages
This Amendment No. 4 to the Tender Offer Statement on Schedule 14D-1
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 1998 (as
amended, the "Schedule 14D-1") relates to the tender offer by ACS Acquisition
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Purchaser") and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Parent"), to purchase 8,704,238 shares of common stock, par value $.10 per
share (collectively, the "Shares") of BRC Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), at a purchase price of $19.00 per Share, net to
the seller in cash, without interest, upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Offer to Purchase, dated October 23, 1998 (the
"Offer to Purchase"), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the
Schedule 14D-1, as supplemented by the Supplement thereto, dated November 16,
1998 (the "Supplement"), which is attached as Exhibit 19 to Amendment No. 2
to the Schedule 14D-1, which, together with any amendments or supplements
thereto, constitute the "Offer." Capitalized terms used but not defined
herein have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Offer to Purchase, the
Supplement and the Schedule 14D-1.
ITEM 10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
Item 10(e) is hereby amended and supplemented by the addition of the
following:
On December 10, 1998, the Company filed a lawsuit styled BRC
Holdings, Inc. v. Matador Capital Management Corporation (Civil Action No.
3-98-CV-2893-L) in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division, which alleges, among other things, that Matador
made materially false and misleading statements to the Company's stockholders
and seeks injunctive relief and damages. A copy of such lawsuit is attached
hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated herein by reference.
On December 10, 1998, the Company issued a press release relating to
such lawsuit, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.2 and
incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 11. MATERIAL TO BE FILED AS EXHIBITS.
Item 11 of the Schedule 14D-1 is hereby amended to add the following
exhibits:
99.1 Complaint -- BRC Holdings, Inc. v. Matador Capital Management
Corporation (Civil Action No. 3-98-CV-2893-L) filed on December 10,
1998 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division.
99.2 Press Release of the Company dated December 10, 1998.
<PAGE>
Page 3 of 4 Pages
SIGNATURES
After due inquiry and to the best of my knowledge and belief, I
certify that the information set forth in this statement is true, complete
and correct.
Dated: December 11, 1998.
ACS ACQUISITION CORPORATION
By: /s/ MARK A. KING
--------------------------------------
Name: Mark A. King
------------------------------------
Title: Vice President
-----------------------------------
AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.
By: /s/ MARK A. KING
--------------------------------------
Name: Mark A. King
------------------------------------
Title: Executive Vice President and Chief
-----------------------------------
Financial Officer
-----------------------------------
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
EXHIBIT
NUMBER ITEM
------- ----
<S> <C>
99.1 Complaint -- BRC Holdings, Inc. v. Matador Capital Management
Corporation (Civil Action No. 3-98-CV-2893-L) filed on December 10,
1998 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division.
99.2 Press Release of the Company dated December 10, 1998.
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
BRC HOLDINGS, INC., )(
)(
PLAINTIFF, )(
)( CIVIL ACTION NO.
VS. )(
)( 3-98-CV-2893-L
MATADOR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT )(
CORPORATION, )(
)(
DEFENDANT. )(
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
COMES NOW BRC Holdings, Inc. ("BRC") and complains of and files this
action against Matador Capital Management Corporation ("Matador"), and would
respectfully show as follows:
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1. BRC is forced to bring this federal securities laws action because
of Matador's false and misleading statements to BRC's stockholders regarding
the fair and reasonable price for the sale of BRC shares pursuant to a
pending tender offer. BRC entered into a two-step merger agreement with
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. ("ACS") for an acquisition price of
$19/share, which represents an approximate 18% premium over BRC's pre-offer
share price. Importantly, and as expressly found by the Delaware Chancery
Court in a prior proceeding initiated by Matador, as of November 25, 1998,
the ACS offer was the ONLY OFFER made by any entity to acquire BRC. Despite
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 1
<PAGE>
this fact, Matador contacted numerous BRC stockholders after the ACS merger
was announced and falsely and deliberately misrepresented to those
stockholders that other competing bids had been submitted to BRC for a higher
price. More recently, on December 4, 1998, Matador represented to BRC's
stockholders that it was prepared to immediately submit a proposal for the
acquisition of BRC's shares at $21/share. Upon investigation, however, it is
clear that Matador's purported proposal is NOT A REAL OFFER, and that Matador
does not have, and NEVER HAD, financing to support a $21/share bid. Matador
has not submitted a letter of intent or a specific financial proposal.
Moreover, despite its representations that, "it was highly motivated to move
expeditiously to close this transactions," Matador has not accepted BRC's
offer to meet with its management in Dallas, nor has it requested specific
financial or operating information. As of the date of filing of this action,
NO TENDER OFFER has been submitted to BRC by Matador.
1.2. In short, all of these actions and misrepresentations by Matador
were made with an intent to deceive and dissuade BRC's stockholders from
fairly considering ACS's bid to acquire BRC. BRC has no choice but to file
this claim against Matador for Matador's federal securities laws violations
to allow BRC's stockholders to fairly and accurately consider the proposed
ACS tender offer.
2.
BACKGROUND
2.1. BRC is a Dallas-based corporate holding company whose affiliates and
subsidiaries provide information technology services to its customers. Its
stock is publicly traded on The Nasdaq National Market and it has over 13.7
million outstanding shares. ACS is also a Dallas-based entity that provides
the same or similar types of services as BRC, in addition to other technology
based
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 2
<PAGE>
services. Matador claims to be an investment advisor company and it has a
small, beneficial ownership, approximately 6.8%, of BRC shares. On or about
October 19, 1998, BRC entered into a merger agreement ("Merger Agreement")
with ACS, the terms of which would allow ACS to acquire BRC's outstanding
shares in a two-step transaction. As part of the proposed acquisition, ACS
submitted a tender offer (the "ACS tender offer") on or about October 23,
1998 to purchase 8,704,238 shares of BRC at $19/share (representing
approximately 51% of BRC's shares on a fully diluted basis). If 8,704,238
shares of BRC are tendered, then the additional shares would also be acquired
by a subsequent merger in exchange for $19/share.
2.2. The $19/share offer by ACS represents an approximate 18% premium
over the stock's pre-offer market price. Apparently unhappy with this
premium, a group of minority stockholders formed and controlled by Matador
sought to enjoin the ACS tender offer by filing an action in Delaware
Chancery Court on October 30, 1998. Importantly, despite apparent beneficial
ownership of more than 5% of BRC's shares well before that time, Matador did
not file a Schedule 13D disclosure until November 4, 1998. After the
announcement of the Merger Agreement, Matador's President and controlling
stockholder, Jeffrey A. Berg, (and potentially other Matador officers and
employees) contacted several BRC stockholders to persuade them to decline the
tender offer. In a prior deposition taken in conjunction with the Delaware
proceedings, Berg admitted that he contacted "a couple" of BRC's largest
stockholders and informed them that he had "models" of BRC's forecasted
performance. He falsely represented to these individuals that BRC management
had endorsed the results presented in these "models" and attempted to
dissuade these individuals from tendering their shares at $19. Thus, upon
information and belief, Berg intentionally made false and misleading
statements to these stockholders by implying that BRC management had endorsed
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 3
<PAGE>
financial projections that showed the company's valuation in excess of
$19/share. In reality, the sole basis for Berg's "models" was his own
internal financial projections regarding BRC and the price he paid for his
shares of BRC stock, yet, upon information and belief, he intentionally never
disclosed this to these stockholders.
2.3. Matador also made false and misleading statements to BRC's
stockholders regarding other competing offers that it claimed had been
submitted to BRC, including an alleged offer by Charles (Chick) Young and his
company, International Sourcing Ltd. ("ISL"), at $21/share. Again, in
reality, and as found by the Delaware Chancery Court, no real offer was ever
made by Chick Young to BRC to acquire its shares at any price; rather, Young
never demonstrated that he was able to arrange for financing to support any
acquisition of BRC's shares.
2.4. BRC has reason to believe and does believe that Berg and Matador had
full knowledge of this information, but proceeded to submit materially false
and inaccurate financial data and misrepresentations about other alleged
offers to BRC's stockholders in an attempt to dissuade them from tendering
their shares. In fact, after considering the extensive arguments and evidence
presented by the parties, the Delaware Chancery Court required additional
disclosures regarding BRC's efforts to sell the company, but it REFUSED TO
ENJOIN the tender offer or preclude the ACS merger, other than for the time
period necessary to allow BRC stockholders to consider the additional
disclosures. The Chancery Court also expressly found that:
ISL has had the opportunity to meet and negotiate with
BRC representatives and has conducted extensive due
diligence. Yet, other than [a] July 6, 1998 letter
(which did not furnish evidence of any real financing
capability), ISL has never presented an offer to
[BRC's] board for consideration.
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 4
<PAGE>
SEE p. 22 of the Delaware Chancery Court's Opinion. The Chancery Court went
on to state, in discussing the ACS tender offer, that:
no superior offer has been made to the Company, despite
the provisions of the [Merger] Agreement which
specifically permit such offers and allow the directors
to negotiate with persons making potentially superior
proposals. The ACS transaction was announced more than
one month ago and will remain outstanding, subject to a
competing offer, for some additional time. The failure
of any potential competitor to make a proposal in that
time frame is evidence that the directors, in fact,
obtained the HIGHEST AND BEST TRANSACTION REASONABLY
AVAILABLE.
SEE pp. 25-26 of the Delaware Chancery Court's Opinion (emphasis added).
Importantly, Matador, despite all of its alleged economic models, did not
submit a competing offer at that time, but chose instead to initiate the
legal proceedings in Delaware.
2.5. Still unsatisfied with an 18% premium and the Chancery Court's
findings, Matador submitted its own "bear-hug" letter ("Letter") to BRC's
board of directors dated December 4, 1998, in which Matador threw out a
number of $21/share for the purchase of BRC's shares. In the Letter, Matador
proposes, subject to due diligence, execution of definitive documentation,
and completion of financing, to acquire BRC at a price of $21/share and
implies that sufficient financing was in place to consummate the deal:
"Matador believes that the combination of equity and debt available through
its own resources and other financing sources will be sufficient to complete
the deal." The Letter does not, however, disclose the purported lead
financing source or the nature of the financing to be received. The contents
of the Letter reached the financial community, especially BRC's stockholders,
almost immediately as a result of public filings by Matador and required
public filings by BRC.
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 5
<PAGE>
2.6. BRC engaged in due diligence regarding Matador's purported offer,
and has attempted to determine the nature and sources of Matador's financing.
Through a series of discussions with Matador, BRC evaluated the viability of
its proposal to submit an offer. No actual financing plan or source has been
presented by Matador to BRC, not to mention sufficient sources that would
support the $315 million purchase allegedly contemplated by Matador.
Moreover, although Matador represented in the Letter that it was "highly
motivated to move expeditiously to close this transaction," it has not
provided BRC with a letter of intent, much less a definitive agreement with
Matador's financing source. Matador has not accepted BRC's offer to meet with
its management in Dallas, nor has it requested specific financial or
operating information from BRC. Berg admitted to BRC's Chief Financial
Officer and its Chairman on December 6, 1998 that no tender offer was likely
to be forthcoming by Matador before the scheduled expiration of the ACS
tender offer. In addition, BRC has been unable, despite repeated requests to
Matador, to set up a meeting between BRC's Chairman and the Chairman of
Matador's purported lead financing source. In short, BRC has reason to
believe and does believe that Matador does not have sufficient financing to
justify its $21/share offer, and, more importantly, that Matador never had
sufficient financing to support the purported offer. Rather, the Letter and
the statements made therein are false and materially misleading statements
intentionally made by Matador to dissuade BRC's stockholders from accepting
the pending ACS tender offer.
3.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
3.1. BRC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Dallas County,
Texas.
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 6
<PAGE>
3.2. Matador is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in St. Petersburg,
Florida. Matador may be served by and through its President, Jeffrey A.
Berg, or any other officer or registered agent for service of process, in any
district of the United States in which those individuals may be located
pursuant to Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), 15
U.S.C. Section 78aa. Berg can be located at his usual place of business, 200
First Avenue North, Suite 201, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701.
3.3. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1331, Sections 14(d) and 14(e) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
78n(d)(e), and Rule 14 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14
(1998).
3.4. Venue is proper in this district and division pursuant to Section 27
of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78aa and 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 because BRC
resides in this district and all transactions regarding BRC, its
stockholders, and the ACS tender offer occurred in this district, or a
substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this
district.
4.
VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 14 OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
4.1. BRC incorporates and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 3 as if set forth at length.
4.2. Section 14(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(d) and Rule 14(d)
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14d (1998) (collectively
"Section 14(d)"), provide that any "solicitation or recommendation to the
holders of [a]security to accept or reject a tender offer" shall be made in
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 7
<PAGE>
accordance with the Act and SEC rules. Section 14(e) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78n(e) and Rule 14(e) promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.14e (1998) (collectively "Section 14(e)"), prohibits any person from
making affirmative material representations or omissions that constitute
false, misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent acts or practices in connection
with any tender offer.
4.3. Matador has failed to comply with the Act, SEC rules, and Section
14(d) by making materially false and misleading statements to BRC's
stockholders to persuade them to reject the ACS tender offer, specifically,
among other statements, false and misleading statements about projections
about BRC's stock price, other offers to purchase BRC's shares, and Matador's
ability to finance an offer at $21/share. Each of these material
misrepresentations are also false, misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent acts
or practices made in connection with a tender offer and are thus prohibited
by Section 14(e). BRC and its stockholders have suffered damages proximately
caused by Matador's violations of Section 14. BRC also seeks an injunction
to restrain Matador from any further violations of Section 14, and to require
Matador to amend and/or correct all false and misleading statements that it
has made, as detailed below.
5.
VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 13(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
5.1. BRC incorporates and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 4 as if set forth at length.
5.2. Section 13(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78m(d) and Rule 13(d)
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.13d.1 (1996) (collectively
"Section 13(d)"), provides that any "syndicate," or "group" of people who
acquire a beneficial interest of more than 5% of a company's stock, with the
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 8
<PAGE>
intent to affect a change in the company's management, file a disclosure
statement regarding their identity and purpose of ownership with each
company, the SEC, and the exchange on which the stock is traded (otherwise
known as a Schedule 13D).
5.3. Matador formed and controlled a group or syndicate that had
beneficial ownership of more than 5% of BRC's shares and it did file a
Schedule 13D on November 4, 1998. BRC has reason to believe and does believe
that this group or syndicate was formed with the intent to affect BRC's
policies and management before October 30, 1998. BRC believes that Berg and
other Matador employees contacted BRC's stockholders no later than October
19, 1998 when the Merger Agreement with ACS was executed. BRC and its
stockholders have suffered damages proximately caused by Matador's violations
of Section 13(d), including those damages caused by Matador's false
statements to stockholders during such time that Matador had not disclosed
its ownership interest in BRC. SEE ALSO Section 14(d).
6.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
6.1. BRC incorporates and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 5 as if set forth at length.
6.2. Matador's failure to comply with Section 14(d) and 14(e) has
resulted in and will continue to result in irreparable harm to BRC for which
no adequate remedy at law exists. Absent injunctive relief, BRC has reason
to believe and does believe that Matador will continue to make false and
misleading statements in an effort to sabotage the pending offer by ACS. If
the tender offer is not consummated by its current deadline of December 14,
1998, ACS is under no obligation to purchase BRC's shares for $19/share.
Again, there are no other legitimate offers by any party,
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 9
<PAGE>
including Matador, to purchase BRC's shares. Thus, BRC believes that BRC and
its stockholders will incur irreparable damage if the tender offer is not
consummated by this date. Lastly, the public interest would be served by
mandating Matador's compliance with the federal securities laws.
6.3. BRC moves the Court for the entry of a preliminary injunction
against Matador. BRC requests that Matador, its officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
participation with it who receive actual notice of the injunction, be
restrained and enjoined to refrain them from:
(1) violating Section 14(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(d), by
failing to comply with federal securities laws and SEC rules in
connection with a recommendation to BRC's stockholders to accept or
reject any tender offer of BRC's stock;
(2) violating Section 14(e) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(d), by
making material misrepresentations or omissions that are false,
misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent in connection with any tender
offer made regarding BRC's stock, or in connection with a
recommendation to BRC's stockholders to accept or reject any tender
offer of BRC's stock, including, but not limited to:
(a) representing, stating, or implying that Matador or its affiliates
has submitted an imminent or firm offer to purchase BRC's shares
at $21/share, or that Matador or its affiliates have obtained
financing to support the purchase of BRC's shares at $21/share,
or from misrepresenting the status of their attempts to obtain
financing to support the purchase of BRC's shares at $21/share;
or
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 10
<PAGE>
(b) representing, stating, or implying that any other firm offer has
been made by any entity for the purchase of BRC's shares, other
than the ACS tender offer.
(3) violating any other provision of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78.
6.4. BRC moves the Court for the entry of a preliminary injunction
against Matador. BRC requests that Matador, its officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
participation with it who receive actual notice of the injunction, be
required to correct and/or amend all previous misstatements, omissions, or
false and misleading statements regarding BRC, including, but not limited to:
(1) all statements, representations, or implications that Matador or its
affiliates has submitted a firm offer to purchase BRC's shares at
$21/share or that Matador or its affiliates have obtained financing to
support the purchase of BRC's shares at $21/share; and
(2) all statements, representations, or implications that any other firm
offer has been made by any entity for the purchase of BRC's shares,
other than the ACS tender offer.
6.5. BRC further moves the Court, upon final hearing, for the entry of a
permanent injunction to enjoin Matador, its officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
participation with it who receive actual notice of the injunction, from each
of the actions set forth above.
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 11
<PAGE>
7.
PRAYER
BRC requests that the Court enter injunctive relief against Matador as
requested herein, and for judgment awarding actual, and consequential damages
against Matador for the causes of action detailed herein.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, BRC Holdings, Inc. respectfully requests
that Defendant Matador Capital Management Corporation be cited to appear and
answer herein, that a preliminary injunction be issued against Matador as
requested herein, and that upon final hearing or trial hereof, permanent
injunctive relief be awarded against Matador, and that BRC be awarded
monetary damages against Matador as requested herein, pre- and post-judgment
interest as allowed by law, and for all such other and further relief, to
which BRC may show itself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
901 Main Street, Suite 6000
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 953-6000
Telecopier - (214) 953-5822
By: /s/ Retta A. Miller
---------------------------------
Retta A. Miller
State Bar No. 14106700
Mark T. Josephs
State Bar No. 11031400
James M. McCown
State Bar No. 00788002
ATTORNEYS FOR BRC HOLDINGS, INC.
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 12
<PAGE>
[LOGO]
Corporate Office
BRC Holdings, Inc.
1111 W. Mockingbird Lane
Suite 1400
Dallas, Texas 75247-5014
Tel 214.688.1800
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Thomas Kiraly
Executive Vice President &
Chief Financial Officer
(214) 905-2370
BRC SUIT ALLEGES MATADOR PROPOSAL MISLEADING
Dallas, Texas, December 10, 1998 -- BRC Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ-BRCP) ("BRC")
filed suit against Matador Capital Management Corporation ("Matador") in
federal court this morning alleging that Matador has made misleading
statements about its ability to make an offer for BRC's common stock. In its
suit, BRC alleges that Matador made public statements designed to mislead BRC
stockholders into believing that Matador was preparing to make an immediate
offer for BRC's common stock at a price of $21 per share at a time when
Matador had not arranged financing for such a transaction.
The lawsuit, BRC HOLDINGS, INC. V. MATADOR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, is
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division.
