DealLawyers.com Blog

January 10, 2011

M&A Securities Class Actions Take 2

Here is something that ISS’s Luke Green recently blogged:

Securities Litigation Watch has recently noted that securities class actions related to M&A activity have been skyrocketing since 2009. And, as Advisen’s most recent Q3 report observes, breach of fiduciary suits filed in state court are the “raging bull of the year thus far,” constituting “approximately a third of all new security suit filings in Q3 2010.” Commentators have argued that the growth of M&A breach of fidcuiary suits is largely due to plaintiff’s attorneys seeking new revenue streams as securities class action suits decline. But, a brief analysis of economic conditions relating to M&A activity seems to indicate that other significant factors may be fueling the M&A class action trend.

To understand where we are today in terms of the surging numbers of M&A class actions it may help to start first with an analysis of the supply and demand forces at play during the credit crisis. Throughout 2008 strong companies became increasingly pessimistic as the U.S. sunk into the depths of recession. Faced with a frozen credit market and plummeting consumer spending, these companies were incentivized to change their growth strategy from horizontal and vertical integration to organic growth based on their core strengths, or to rightsizing their cost structures in anticipation of reduced economic activities. Honest corporate executives aspired to make their quarterly numbers by applying traditional conservative growth strategies: efficiency through lean production and reduced staffing, focusing resources on core competencies, and cutting costs. While these companies turned their attention inward they also began storing up cash reserves and planning for the worst.

As a result, not only did a panicked lending industry freeze credit, corporate buying dwindled resulting into an all but non-existent M&A market. Private equity firms, which account for a significant portion of M&A in a normal market, generally withdrew from the deal market as well. Meanwhile, on the M&A supply side, the ranks of the less fortunate swelled as reduced revenues and lack of credit exposed weaknesses in companies that otherwise prospered during better times. Because of the broad nature of the recession, buyers were few and far between for the mounting number of distressed companies. But, even if there were potential buyers for these companies, sellers were reluctant to sell for fear of being underpriced in a hyper distressed stock market.

Fast forward to November 2010. What has changed? The aching back of a deep recession is still all too familiar. And, times are still tough for many. But, there are signs of positive change. Christopher Lisle of Acclaro Growth Partners reports that, as of September 2010, GPD growth has averaged 3.5% since mid-2009. During the same time period half a million private sector jobs were created. Furthermore, credit markets are beginning to thaw. Lisle estimates that private equity firms have as much as $450 billion in cash sitting on the sidelines that they stored up during the boom years but now must use before they have to give it back to investors. Buyer confidence in corporate stability appears to be on the rise as well. Jeremy Gaunt of Thompson Reuters reports that the price for investment grade corporate bonds is on the rise while the cost of insuring U.S. and European investment grade debt is going down. Typically, the accelerated purchase of these securities indicates investor confidence that companies will not be damaged by what Gaunt refers to as “U.S. slowdown and contagion elsewhere.”

The link between increased M&A activity and thawing credit markets, cash-rich U.S. corporations and increased investor confidence appears compelling. Thompson Reuters reports that worldwide M&A deals reached $267 billion in August, which was the most active August since 1999. The StarTribune reports that the first half of 2010 is the best half for M&A since 2007 with a 49% increase in the first half of 2010 from the same period in 2009.

With credit available to those who qualify at pre-2008 prices, companies with the ability to buy are in a position for strategic growth. And, as the economy has stabilized, buyer confidence has risen as reliable economic forecasts are becoming more realistic. In addition, many of these companies toned their infrastructure and core businesses during the darkest parts of the recession while storing up cash reserves along the way. For these fortunate shoppers the M&A store shelves are stocked with candy. Many companies suffered more than they could bear during the recession and have not yet fully recovered. Others are drawing ever closer to insolvency (Advisen observes that bankruptcies in Q1 2010 jumped significantly from the already high numbers in Q1 2009). Thus, these weaker companies are looking for an exit strategy. M&A, while not always the most attractive option, is at least an option. Now that both buyers and sellers are more confident that available credit can ensure that M&A deals will close, the scales are tipping in favor of M&A.

M&A activity seems to be surging on the coattails of a recovering economy. M&A related securities class actions are also surging. Are these trends cause and effect? It appears very likely that the same forces driving M&A activity in general are also driving M&A securities class actions. Most of the M&A suits are breach of fiduciary duty suits (Advisen reports that they accounted for 33% of all securities suits filed through the first three quarters in 2010). More often than not these types of suits involve shareholders who are upset that their board is selling at depressed prices. Allegations often include self dealing on the part of the board, especially where change in management incentives and compensation are involved. So, companies hard hit by the recession are looking for a way out. Boards and executives who have little hope of improving their numbers any time soon are looking for a way out. With limited options, M&A is an alternative, albeit one that investors whose stocks have taken a severe beating are reluctant to embrace. It is the perfect storm for breach of fiduciary suits.

The trend toward increased M&A activity and an increasing number of M&A securities class actions appears likely to continue. The rebound from low transaction volumes seems to be in full swing as credit markets improve and management/board confidence remains positive and stable. But, the true longevity of the trend is anyone’s guess. A relapse into recession would demoralize investors and restrict credit flows again, which would almost certainly tighten the noose on M&A activity. For the time being, however, slow and steady economic growth out of an economic trough seems to be the recipe for rising M&A securities class actions.

January 3, 2011

Delaware Chancery Enjoins Merger Vote Pending Corrective Disclosures

Here is news from Tom Bayliss of Abrams & Bayliss:

On December 20th, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued this bench ruling enjoining a special meeting of stockholders of Art Technology Group, Inc. (“ATG”) that had been scheduled to obtain stockholder approval of ATG’s approximately $1 billion acquisition by Oracle Corporation (also see this transcript). Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster found that the proxy statement disseminated in advance of the ATG special meeting was materially deficient because it failed to disclose approximately $24 million in payments made by Oracle to Morgan Stanley, ATG’s financial advisor, in connection with unrelated services during the previous two years.

At the time, the Court indicated that it would likely issue a written opinion unless the parties resolved their dispute by agreeing on a proxy supplement – the parties ended up submitting competing forms of order in an attempt to memorialize the Court’s injunction ruling. On December 21st, Vice Chancellor Laster heard arguments from the parties on the form of order and gave the following guidance from the bench:

“What’s really driving this, in my mind, is to ensure that stockholders have a sense of the financial advisors’ incentives, not only in connection with the current deal … but also in terms of historical buy-side work that might cause Morgan Stanley or a stockholder to believe that Morgan Stanley had some interest in pleasing the buyer or maintaining good relations to the buyer.”

“[I]t struck me that stockholders would want to know and that it would be material to stockholders to find out, as here, for example, that fees during the period covered by the background of the merger section and, hence, deemed by the parties to the merger agreement to be material to the decision were, in fact, larger in favor of Oracle than in favor of ATG in the aggregate.”

“[W]hat I think is material is really the aggregate nature of the fees. I do think it should be broken down by year, but I don’t think there needs to be … assignment-by-assignment discourse.”

At the close of the hearing, Vice Chancellor Laster confirmed that he would not issue a written opinion and this order was issued shortly afterwards. The Court indicated that the ATG stockholder meeting should be convened and then adjourned for at least ten days following the issuance of any corrective disclosures (which could be disseminated via SEC Form 8-K). The Court declined to require an injunction bond but questioned the Court of Chancery’s traditional reluctance to require bonds to sustain disclosure-based injunctions. The Court also mused about the potential applicability of the Delaware Supreme Court’s recent decision in Guzzetta v. Service Corporation of Westover Hills (Del. Nov. 9, 2010) (reversing Court of Chancery’s determination of an injunction bond in a real property dispute).

December 16, 2010

Inside the Delaware Chancery Court

In his “Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog,” Francis Pileggi recently blogged:

The twelve-year term of one member of the Delaware Court of Chancery expired last month. The Delaware Constitution allows for a jurist to continue in office not more than 60 days after his or her term expires. The State Senate is not scheduled to convene according to its regular schedule until after that 60-day period would have expired. Thus, the Delaware Governor called for a Special Session of the State Senate, to be held on December 14, to approve his re-appointment of the sitting vice chancellor involved, in order to avoid any interruption in service. The Delaware Grapevine provides an expert description of the process and the political “back story”.

For readers interested in the minutiae and nuances of the Delaware Court of Chancery and at least one of its members, the story linked above provides details that one is not likely to find (all in one place) in any other published source.

December 15, 2010

2010 Canadian Private Target M&A Deal Points Study

Jim Griffin of Fulbright & Jaworski just alerted me to the release of the ABA Business Law Section’s 2010 Canadian Private Target M&A Deal Points Study, which covers share and asset acquisitions completed during 2007, 2008 and 2009 of private targets in Canada. The differences highlighted in this study – compared with their results for its US study – include a lower frequency of deals with earnouts and post-closing purchase price adjustments, some classic representations, materiality qualifiers and terms regarding indemnification, such as pro-sandbagging (a/k/a “benefit-of-the-bargain”) clauses.

December 13, 2010

How Accurate was the PwC Transaction Services 2010 M&A Forecast?

Last week, PricewaterhouseCoopers Transaction Services outlook for the coming year. How did the PwC survey fare this past year – according to their press release:

Strategic Deals and ‘mergers of productivity’ will drive activity in 2010.
Correct. In 2010, companies focused on synergies to enhance productivity and cost-savings. For 2011, PwC contends that a different focus on ‘productivity’ will be a theme as companies look to bolster revenue growth, versus focus on synergies.

We expect to see more IPOs coming to market from private equity.
Correct. Private equity (financial sponsor) backed offerings led the IPO market recovery in 2010, with a total of 115 offerings raising $15.9 billion in the first nine months of 2010, according to PwC’s IPO Watch. “The climate for private equity-backed IPOs in 2010 was robust and we expect this trend to continue,” said PwC’s Hartnett, “however the IPO market is not the only avenue for PE to realize investments, with sales to strategics and dividends also becoming attractive alternatives.”

Financing will be the dominant challenge contributing to the instability of middle market deals.
Partially correct. Debt markets improved in the second half of 2010 as seen in the return of the bank loan market and revival of leveraged finance.

Divestitures will be a factor in fueling deals.
Correct. Divestitures, e.g. carve-outs, were a factor in driving activity, principally in the middle market, as both seller’s valuations and buyer’s access to financing improved. This trend was highlighted by an increase in total divestiture value to $264 billion for year to date November 2010, compared with $241 billion for calendar year 2009, and an increase in divestiture deal value as a percentage of total M&A from 33 percent to 39 percent, an overall increase of 6 percent.

Consumer products, Technology, Energy, Financial Services, Automotive, Healthcare, and Entertainment & Media industry sectors will present opportunities for consolidation.
Partially correct. Financial Services and Healthcare M&A activity was not as strong as expected with a sizeable decrease in both deal value and volume, year on year. Automotive deal activity remained relatively flat in 2010, as companies continued to strengthen their balance sheets before re-entering the deal market.

*The accuracy of the PwC Transaction Services previous forecast does not guarantee future accuracy.

December 9, 2010

Shareholder Say on “Golden Parachute Compensation”

Here is something that Mike Melbinger recently blogged on his CompensationStandards.com’s “Melbinger’s Compensation Blog“:

Public companies all over America are deciding whether to follow the disclosure requirements of the new, proposed rules on “Golden Parachute Compensation,” in order to take advantage of the exemption in the proposed rules from future disclosure and approval in a merger proxy. During the numerous compensation committee and board meetings on Shareholder Say on Pay that I have attended in the last month, I have had the opportunity to gain some useful insight on this issue.

Remember that Dodd-Frank would require a company to disclose, in any proxy in which shareholders are asked to approve an acquisition, merger, consolidation, etc., and seek shareholder approval of any “golden parachute compensation.”* However, Dodd-Frank would not require this approval if shareholders already had approved the company’s golden parachute payments and agreements as part of a regular Shareholder Say on Pay vote. To take advantage of this exception, the company must follow the disclosure requirements of new, proposed rules, including the new “Golden Parachute Compensation” table, rather than the more general, current requirements.

Our first reaction – and that of many others – to the Dodd-Frank exception that would not require separate approval of golden parachute compensation in a merger proxy if shareholders already had approved the company’s golden parachute payments and agreements as part of a regular Shareholder Say on Pay vote, was that it was very useful and most clients should take advantage of it. However, upon further reflection (and the experience of all those compensation committee meetings), we no longer see this exception as a no-brainer.

Here is why.

ISS recently announced that, in cases where the company incorporates the golden parachute vote into its SSOP vote, ISS will evaluate the “say on pay” proposal in accordance with its usual guidelines, “which may give higher weight to that component of the overall evaluation.”

Companies with an excise tax gross-up provision and/or a 3 times multiplier might be better off waiting for a merger proxy to make this disclosure and seek shareholder approval, rather than risking ISS (or other shareholder) disapproval of its entire compensation package. Clearly, for some companies, the benefit of having these arrangements approved in advance may not be worth the additional attention and risk that they may not be approved.

Making disclosure and seeking approval in a merger proxy seems less risky because the request for shareholder approval would be non-binding in any event, and a vote to disapprove would not affect the merger transaction in any way. Additionally, as pointed out in a recent Morrow & Co. update, the announcement of a merger often results in a change in the target company’s shareholder profile, with institutions selling shares and arbitrageurs and hedge funds buying. Thus, the merger proxy voting shareholder profile may be one that has a greater interest in seeing the transaction consummated and is less concerned about matters of compensation

The minimal risk of postponing this disclosure and request for approval until a merger proxy would seem to be that, in very close cases, shareholders might vote against the merger itself if they believe the parachute payments are excessive. Of course, ISS may come to demand this type of full disclosure over time, but they haven’t yet.

*Also remember that the new definition of “golden parachute compensation” means any type of compensation that relates to a change in control transaction, in any amount. For this purpose, at least, “golden parachute compensation” no longer refers to payments in excess of three times a covered executive’s base annual compensation.

December 6, 2010

November-December Issue: Deal Lawyers Print Newsletter

This November-December issue of the Deal Lawyers print newsletter was just sent to the printer and includes articles on:

– The 2011 Outlook for Deals & Governance: Back to the Future
– “Clear and Simple”: SEC Proposes Say-on-Golden Parachute and Enhanced Disclosure Rules
– Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Net Operating Loss Poison Pill
– Top-Up Options: Looking Better and Better
– M&A Due Dilgence: The Effect of Restatements

If you’re not yet a subscriber, try a “Rest of ’10 for Free” no-risk trial to get a non-blurred version of this issue on a complimentary basis.