Mergers And Acquisitions: Types Of Transactions
Types of Mergers and Acquisitions
A merger or acquisition (M&A) transaction involves the combination of two companies, resulting in either a single corporate entity or a structure with a parent holding company and subsidiary. Mergers can be classified based on the competitive relationship between the parties and the legal structure of the transaction.
Regarding the competitive relationship, there are three main types of mergers:
Horizontal Merger: In this type, one company acquires another that operates in the identical or substantially similar industry. The goal is often to eliminate a competitor and strengthen the acquiring company's market position.
Vertical Merger: In a vertical merger, one company acquires either a customer or a supplier. The aim is to integrate different stages of the production or distribution process, enhancing efficiency and control.
Conglomerate Merger: This category encompasses all other transactions where there is no direct competitive or vertical relationship between the merging parties. It often leads to the creation of a conglomerate, a diversified entity with varied business interests.
From a legal structure perspective, M&A transactions can take various forms:
Asset Purchase: The acquiring company purchases the assets of the target company.
Stock Purchase: The acquiring company buys the shares or equity of the target company.
Forward Merger: The target company merges into the acquiring company, and the acquiring company continues to exist.
Forward or Reverse Triangular Merger: These involve the creation of a new entity (triangular) where the acquiring company may gain control. In a reverse triangular merger, the target company shareholders and management may gain control of the acquiring company.
Each type of merger or acquisition structure has its own implications and considerations, and the choice depends on the strategic goals, financial arrangements, and regulatory environment of the parties involved.
In an asset purchase transaction, the acquiring company has the flexibility to selectively choose the assets it wishes to acquire and the liabilities it is willing to assume. This type of transaction allows for a more tailored acquisition where the acquirer can specify the assets it desires, including tangible and intangible rights, and precisely define the liabilities it is willing to take on. Asset purchases can be intricate, requiring careful drafting to ensure the inclusion of desired assets and the assumption of specified liabilities. Additionally, obtaining third-party consents may be necessary to achieve the intended outcome.
In a stock acquisition, the acquiring company purchases the stock directly from the shareholders of the target company. The result of a stock acquisition can be categorized as either a forward or reverse acquisition, depending on the control retained by the target company shareholders after the transaction closes. In a stock acquisition, the operations, assets, and liabilities of the target company remain unchanged; only the ownership structure is altered. However, complexities may arise if certain target company shareholders refuse to participate, leading to the presence of unfriendly minority shareholders. Often, stock acquisitions are structured with closing contingent upon a specified percentage of shareholder participation, such as 90% or even 100%. This approach ensures a more cohesive ownership structure and mitigates challenges posed by dissenting minority shareholders.
In a forward merger or a forward or reverse triangular merger, two companies join forces, resulting in the creation of a single corporate entity or a structure with a parent holding company and subsidiary. In this type of merger, the shareholders of the target company typically receive compensation in the form of stock of the acquiring company, cash, or a combination of both. All assets and liabilities of the target company are included in the M&A transaction. A triangular merger involves the formation of a new acquisition subsidiary to facilitate the transaction, leading to the establishment of a parent-subsidiary relationship.
As mentioned earlier, a reverse merger involves a change in control of the acquiring company. In a reverse or reverse triangular merger, the shareholders of the target company exchange their shares for either new or existing shares of the acquiring company. This results in a scenario where, at the conclusion of the transaction, the shareholders of the target company hold a majority of the shares of the acquiring company. The target company may become a wholly owned subsidiary of the acquiring company or merge into a newly formed acquisition subsidiary. Reverse mergers are commonly employed as a means for a private target company to transition into a public entity, especially when the acquiring company is already publicly traded.
The chosen structure should align with the broader goals of the transaction and optimize the overall outcome for the parties involved. This strategic decision-making process involves evaluating the financial, legal, and operational aspects to ensure that the selected form meets the specific needs and priorities of the entities undergoing the merger or acquisition.
Refresher on Other Aspects of the Transaction
An Outline of the Transaction Documents
In the typical M&A process, the initial steps involve the execution of a confidentiality agreement and a letter of intent, followed by the merger agreement itself. Here's a breakdown of these key documents and their purposes:
1. Confidentiality Agreement:
Objective: The primary goal is to protect sensitive information shared during the negotiation and due diligence process.
Content: The agreement outlines the terms under which both parties agree to keep information confidential. This includes restrictions on internal and external disclosure.
Additional Provisions: Confidentiality agreements may include non-competition clauses, prohibitions against solicitation of customers or employees, standstill provisions (limiting certain actions by one party), and exclusivity provisions.
2. **Letter of Intent (LOI):**
Nature: Generally non-binding, the LOI serves as an initial agreement outlining the fundamental terms and conditions of the proposed transaction.
Purpose: The LOI helps identify and address key issues early in the negotiation process. It aims to streamline the due diligence phase and focus efforts on resolving critical matters.
Key Points: The LOI may cover aspects such as the purchase price or price range, parameters for due diligence, pre-deal recapitalizations, confidentiality, exclusivity, and specific time frames for each step in the process.
Transaction Checklist: Alongside the LOI, the parties' attorneys often create a transaction checklist. This checklist serves as a guide, outlining tasks and responsibilities, helping ensure a structured and efficient process.
These early documents lay the groundwork for the subsequent phases of the M&A deal, providing a framework for negotiations and establishing the key parameters for moving forward.
In the realm of M&A negotiations, exclusivity clauses are often present in letters of intent, known as "no shop" or "window shop" provisions. A "no shop" clause bars one or both parties from engaging in discussions with third parties that might adversely impact the potential deal within a specified timeframe. Conversely, a "window shop" provision permits some level of negotiation with third parties, such as considering unsolicited proposals.
A distinct provision is the "go shop" clause, which serves a dual purpose by addressing the fiduciary duty of the target company's board of directors and potentially maximizing shareholder value. In a "go shop" scenario, the potential acquirer allows the target company to actively seek better offers upfront, providing a controlled mechanism for testing the market before significant resources are invested. This provision is often sought when the board's "Revlon Duties" are activated, indicating a change of control.
A standstill provision functions to restrict a party from making significant business alterations beyond regular operations throughout the negotiation period. This includes constraints on actions like selling substantial assets, incurring exceptional debts, divesting subsidiaries, making changes to the management team, and similar activities. Additionally, companies often safeguard their interests in the letter of intent (LOI) stage by stipulating lock-up agreements for major stockholders. These agreements may entail commitments to vote in favor of the deal and refraining from transferring or disposing of their shares until the deal is finalized.
The Merger Agreement
In summary, the merger agreement delineates the financial specifics of the transaction and outlines the legal rights and responsibilities of the involved parties. It furnishes the buyer with a comprehensive overview of the acquired business, including provisions for rights and remedies in case of significant inaccuracies. The agreement specifies closing procedures, conditions precedent, and post-closing commitments, while also detailing the representations and warranties made by all parties and the corresponding rights and remedies in the event of inaccuracies in these representations and warranties.
The key elements of the merger agreement, along with brief explanations, are outlined below:
1. Representations and warranties: These statements offer a snapshot of the factual status as of the closing date. Sellers typically represent facts about the business, such as asset ownership, absence of undisclosed liabilities, and legal compliance. Buyers make representations regarding legal capacity and authority to enter into a binding contract, among other things. Both parties confirm the accuracy of public filings, financial statements, material contracts, tax matters, and the organization and structure of the entity.
2. Covenants: These provisions govern the actions of the parties before and after closing. For instance, a covenant may require the seller to continue operating the business in the ordinary course and maintain assets until closing. All covenants mandate good faith compliance.
3. Conditions: Conditions pertain to prerequisites for closing, including approvals from shareholders and the board of directors, obtaining certain third-party consents, and the execution of necessary documents. If these conditions are not met, the parties typically have the right to cancel the transaction.
4. Indemnification/remedies: These sections outline the rights and remedies available to the parties in the event of a breach, such as a material inaccuracy in representations and warranties or unforeseen third-party claims related to the agreement or the business.
5. Deal protections: Similar to the LOI, the merger agreement includes deal protection terms. These can involve provisions like no-shop or window-shop clauses, requirements for business operations leading up to closing, breakup fees, and voting agreements.
6. Schedules: Schedules provide detailed information on what the seller is selling, including a comprehensive list of customers, contracts, equity holders, individual creditors, and the terms of obligations. Schedules offer in-depth details about the transaction.
If the parties haven't previously established a letter of intent or confidentiality agreement outlining the due diligence process, the merger agreement might incorporate due diligence provisions. Due diligence involves the comprehensive legal, business, and financial examination of a business before entering into a transaction. While the specific procedures of due diligence can vary based on the transaction's nature, whether it's a small acquisition or a reverse merger for going public, it is widely considered a crucial aspect of any transaction, potentially on par with the importance of documentation.
Board of Directors’ Fiduciary Duties in the Merger Process
In accordance with state corporate law, the governance of a corporation's business and affairs typically falls under the direction of its board of directors. Board members are bound by a fiduciary relationship to the corporation, necessitating that their actions prioritize the corporation's best interests over their personal interests. Courts generally refrain from scrutinizing directors' decisions provided that the board has followed an appropriate decision-making process. This principle is known as the "business judgment rule," establishing a presumption that "in making a business decision, the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company." This concept is echoed in various Delaware cases, including the notable Smith vs. Van Gorkom decision (488 A.2d 858, Del. 1985).
In specific situations, particularly in the context of a merger and acquisition transaction where a board might confront a conflict of interest (e.g., balancing the corporation's financial benefit against personal gains in terms of cash or job security), the actions of the board of directors undergo heightened scrutiny. This is known as the "enhanced scrutiny business judgment rule," originating from legal precedents such as Revlon, Inc. vs. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. (506 A.2d 173, Del. 1986) and Unocal vs. Mesa Petroleum (493 A.2d 946, Del. 1985).
The "entire fairness standard," a third criterion, becomes relevant when a conflict of interest arises involving directors and/or shareholders, such as when directors are involved on both sides of a transaction. Under this standard, directors are obligated to demonstrate that the entire transaction is equitable for the shareholders, encompassing both the procedural aspects and the substance, including price and terms.
In all instances, directors' fiduciary duties to a corporation encompass honesty and good faith, along with the duty of care, duty of loyalty, and duty of disclosure. Specifically, the duty of care mandates that directors perform their duties with the same level of care a reasonable person would employ, acting in the best interests of the corporation and exercising good faith within the unique circumstances of that particular corporation. The duty of loyalty necessitates the absence of conflicts between duty and self-interest, while the duty of disclosure obliges directors to furnish comprehensive and materially accurate information to the corporation.
In the realm of mergers or acquisitions, a director's duties and responsibilities hinge on the specific circumstances of the transaction. In broad terms, if a transaction is deemed immaterial or only marginally affects the company, the scrutiny faced by the board of directors is lessened, and the basic business judgment rule prevails. For instance, in situations where a company's growth strategy relies on acquisitions, the board might outline the strategy and acquisition parameters while leaving the execution largely to C-suite executives.
The director's obligations also vary based on their position in the transaction, whether on the buying or selling side. On the buy side, considerations involve securing the best deal for the company and integrating various aspects like products, services, staff, and processes. Conversely, on the sell side, the primary goal is maximizing returns for shareholders, with social considerations such as job loss factoring into the decision-making process.
Importantly, the law emphasizes the process, steps, and considerations taken by the board of directors rather than the final decision itself. The diligence and effort invested in the process, benefiting both the company and its shareholders, contribute to the protection of directors amid scrutiny. Courts evaluate factors like meeting attendance, frequency, knowledge of the subject matter, deliberation time, guidance from third-party experts, information requests from management, and document review. In the performance of their obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, a board of directors may, and should, seek the advice and counsel of third parties, such as attorneys, investment bankers, and valuation experts. Moreover, it is generally good practice to obtain a third-party fairness opinion on a transaction.
Dissenter and Appraisal Rights
Shareholders of a company involved in a merger transaction typically possess what is known as "dissenters" or "appraisal rights," unless they are active participants in the transaction, such as in the case of a share-for-share exchange agreement. Appraisal rights grant shareholders who dissent from a specific transaction the statutory entitlement to receive the fair value of their stock ownership. This fair value determination may occur through a judicial or court proceeding or an independent valuation. Appraisal rights and the associated valuation processes often lead to extensive litigation in mergers and acquisitions.
While the specifics of the appraisal rights process can differ significantly from state to state, with Delaware serving as a prominent example, the Delaware Chancery Court holds a leading position in judicial precedence regarding this area of corporate law. Given that over half of U.S. public companies and more than two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware, the state's corporate laws set a significant standard.
The Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), particularly Section 262, which governs appraisal rights, imposes strict procedural requirements on both petitioning stockholders and the company involved. Section 262 of the DGCL grants any stockholder of a Delaware corporation the right to seek an appraisal if they meet specific criteria. This includes being the record holder of shares on the appraisal rights demand date, maintaining continuous ownership through the effective date of the merger, following the procedures outlined in Section 262, and abstaining from voting in favor of or consenting to the merger.
Appraisal proceedings commonly involve four recurring valuation techniques: (i) discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis; (ii) comparable company analysis; (iii) comparable transactions analysis; and (iv) the merger price itself. The merger price typically reflects the outcome of the transaction process, contrasting with the more academic and subjective valuation methods employed in litigation challenging the price.
In recent cases, the Delaware court has affirmed the merger price as the most dependable indicator of fair value, particularly when the merger price results from a fair and thorough process in an arm's-length transaction. If there are concerns about the process leading to the final merger price, Delaware courts typically consider the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis as the next best measure of fair value.