Delaware | 0-19424 | 74-2540145 | ||
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (Commission File Number) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |
o | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
o | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
o | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
o | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
• | The Audit Committee engaged a qualified, independent financial advisory firm for the purpose of evaluating the proposed extension agreement relative to comparable market rates for the services contemplated by the agreement, and that firm counseled and advised the committee in the course of its consideration and evaluation of the Madison Park relationship and the proposed terms of the extended engagement. |
• | The Audit Committee sought, received and relied upon an opinion from that independent financial advisory firm to the effect that the consideration to be paid to Madison Park pursuant to the extension agreement is fair to the Company from a financial point of view. |
• | The committee’s financial advisor prepared, and presented to the committee, a report that analyzed numerous separate comparable public company advisory engagements. That report described the structure of the contracted fee and compared the amount of the fee to various financial metrics such as revenues and EBITDA. |
• | The committee considered whether the Company continues to need services provided by Madison Park and whether there were alternative sources for those services. The committee concluded that the services provided by Madison Park under previous contracts, including the fiscal 2013 engagement, had been essential to the Company’s growth and diversification of its business and that these types of services would be critical to continue that successful growth and diversification. Further, the committee concluded that, given the current challenging market environment, the advice, counsel and guidance provided by Madison Park, as well as Madison Park’s contacts and perspectives on financing transactions, capital deployment strategies and strategic acquisition opportunities, would be critical to shaping and executing the Company’s strategic plans, both short-term and long-term. |
• | The committee also concluded that, given the Company’s unique business and based on the committee’s prior investigations, it was unlikely that any other financial or strategic advisor would have the specific expertise to provide the services the Company needs. A necessary element to this conclusion was the unique capabilities and expertise of Madison Park and its principal, Mr. Cohen, including long-term experience and high-level strategic, industry-specific expertise. |
• | The committee again considered a multi-year, performance-based arrangement, but ultimately concluded that an extension for an additional year of the fiscal 2013 fixed-fee arrangement was in the best interests of the Company at this time. |
• | In the context of an analysis of the historical and proposed fee amounts compared with the Company’s historical and projected financial results, as well as the analytical data provided by the committee’s financial advisor, the committee considered whether the proposed retainer fee was appropriate, given the Company’s need for the services and Madison Park’s unique ability to provide them. The committee observed that the amount of the proposed fee generally fell within the ranges indicated by the comparable data, albeit at the upper portions of those ranges. Given the unique expertise provided by Madison Park and the Company’s need for that unique expertise, the committee concluded that a fee in the upper portions of the comparable ranges was justified, particularly given the strategic challenges facing the company over the next year. The committee considered that the Company’s EBITDA performance over the past year has been adversely affected by factors beyond management’s control (specifically, the continued challenging gold environment) and the Company’s decision to invest in future growth opportunities, and noted that the need to formulate and execute strategic plans to address and adapt to those continuing challenges created a continuing, if not enhanced, need for the unique expertise and services provided by Madison Park. |
• | After discussion and analysis, the committee concluded that, under reasonable analytical methodologies, the proposed fee appeared to be within the range indicated by the comparative data, particularly when the Company’s unique needs and Madison Park’s unique abilities were considered. |
10.1 | Advisory Services Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2012, between EZCORP, Inc. and Madison Park, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated September 28, 2012 (Commission File No. 0-19424)) | |
10.2* | Letter Agreement, dated October 9, 2013, between EZCORP, Inc. and Madison Park, LLC extending the engagement of Madison Park through September 30, 2014 |
EZCORP, INC. | |||||||
Date: | October 15, 2013 | By: | /s/ THOMAS H. WELCH, JR. | ||||
Thomas H. Welch, Jr. | |||||||
Senior Vice President, | |||||||
General Counsel and Secretary |
Exhibit No. | Description of Exhibit | |
10.1 | Advisory Services Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2012, between EZCORP, Inc. and Madison Park, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated September 28, 2012 (Commission File No. 0-19424)) | |
10.2* | Letter Agreement, dated October 9, 2013, between EZCORP, Inc. and Madison Park, LLC extending the engagement of Madison Park through September 30, 2014 |