XML 35 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.8.0.1
Note 16 - Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Notes to Financial Statements  
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]
1
6.
CONTINGENCIES
The Company
is a defendant in certain claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, the ultimate disposition of these matters is
not
expected to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements of the Company.
 
However,
three
shareholder lawsuits have been filed against the Company in connection with the proposed Merger with Arvest. The
first
action,
Owens and Hurliman v. Massey, et al
, Case
No.
60CV
-
17
-
5022,
is a putative class action that was
first
filed on
September 11, 2017
in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas. An amended complaint was filed on
October 13, 2017,
and the action was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on
November 1, 2017.
The complaint names the individual members of the Company board, as well as BSF Holdings, as defendants. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that members of the Company board breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s shareholders by (i) agreeing to sell the Company for an inadequate price, (ii) agreeing to inappropriate deal protection provisions in the merger agreement that
may
preclude the Company from soliciting any potential acquirers and limit the ability of the Company board to engage in discussions or negotiations for superior acquisition proposals, and (iii) disseminating a proxy statement that is materially incomplete and misleading. The complaint also alleges that Richard Massey and BSF Holdings, in their capacities as shareholders of the Company, breached fiduciary duties owed by them to the minority shareholders of the Company. The complaint seeks certification by the court as a shareholders’ class action, approval of the plaintiffs as proper plaintiff class representatives, injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger unless and until the Company (a) adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain a merger agreement providing the best possible terms for shareholders and (b) supplements its proxy disclosure (or, in the event the merger is consummated, rescinding the merger or awarding rescissory damages). The complaint also seeks to recover costs and disbursement from the defendants, including attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees.
 
The
second
action,
Reichert v. Bear State Financial, Inc., et al
, Case
No.
4:17
-cv-
654,
was filed on
October 11, 2017
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The
third
action,
Parshall v. Bear State Financial, Inc., et al
, Case
No.
4:17
-cv-
669,
is a putative class action filed on
October 13, 2017
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The
Reichert
complaint names the Company and the individual members of the Company’s board as defendants. The
Parshall
complaint names the Company, the Bank, the individual members of the Company board and Arvest and Acquisition Sub as defendants. The
Reichert
and
Parshall
complaints generally allege, among other things, that defendants violated Sections
14
(a) and
20
(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934
(the “Exchange Act”) by disseminating materially deficient and misleading disclosures in the proxy statement dated
October 5, 2017
relating to the proposed Merger. The
Reichert
and
Parshall
complaints seek injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from consummating the Merger unless and until the Company discloses the material information identified in the complaints. The complaints also seek to recover rescissory damages against the defendants and costs associated with bringing the actions, including attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees.
 
The Company believes these allegations are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against these allegations. At this time, the Company is unable to state whether the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of the lawsuits is probable or remote. The Company is also unable to provide an estimate of the range or amount of potential loss if the outcome should be unfavorable