SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
December 19, 2018
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
(State or other jurisdiction
One Curiosity Way
San Mateo, California 94403
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
(Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)
Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:
Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).
Emerging growth company ☒
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☒
|Item 8.01|| |
SVMK Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), adopted amended and restated bylaws that became effective on September 25, 2018 (the Bylaws). Article XI of the Bylaws provides in part, that, unless the Company consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act of 1933 (such provision, a Federal Forum Provision).
On December 19, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a decision in Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Matthew B. Salzberg et al., C.A. No. 2017-0931-JTL (Del. Ch.), finding that provisions such as the Federal Forum Provision are not valid under Delaware law. In light of this decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Company does not intend to enforce the Federal Forum Provision in its Bylaws unless and until such time there is a final determination by the Delaware Supreme Court regarding the validity of such provisions. To the extent the Delaware Supreme Court makes a final determination that provisions such as the Federal Forum Provision are not valid as a matter of Delaware law, the Companys Board of Directors intends to amend its Bylaws to remove the Federal Forum Provision.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
|Dated: December 28, 2018||By:||/s/ Lora D. Blum|
|Lora D. Blum|
|Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary|