In In re Sirius XM Shareholder Litigation,  Delaware Chancellor Strine dismissed a complaint that the Sirius board had breached its fiduciary duties by adhering to the provisions of an investment agreement with Liberty Media that precluded the Sirius board from blocking Liberty Media’s acquisition of majority control of Sirius through open-market purchases made by Liberty Media following a three-year standstill period. By holding the complaint to be time-barred under the equitable doctrine of laches the Delaware court did not address the merits of whether the Sirius board breached its fiduciary duties. However, In re Sirius still offers the opportunity to recap the guidance on “creeping takeovers” that can be derived from existing Delaware case law:
Posts Tagged ‘Controlling shareholders’
The MFW decision that was issued earlier this year by the Chancellor of the Delaware Chancery Court has been the subject of much discussion with respect to transactions involving controlling shareholders.  But the decision also addressed another important topic: the interplay between the exchange rules and Delaware law with respect to director independence. MFW seemed to align the Delaware law test for director independence with the specific, detailed independence requirements in the exchange rules, but Delaware decisions since MFW continue to reflect highly fact-intensive inquiries that look beyond the bright-line exchange rules. Accordingly, it is important to consider both the exchange rules and the latest guidance from Delaware courts when assessing director independence.
On September 3, 2013, a New York trial court dismissed a stockholder challenge to a going private transaction in which Kenneth Cole, who held approximately 47% of the Company’s outstanding common stock and controlled 90% of the voting power of Kenneth Cole Productions Inc. (“KCP”), purchased the remaining 53% of the common stock of KCP that he did not already own. Willkie Farr & Gallagher represented Mr. Cole in the underlying going private transaction and the class action litigation that ensued.
On February 24, 2012, KCP announced that Mr. Cole had proposed a transaction to take KCP private and to pay the public stockholders $15.00 per share, which reflected a 17% premium to KCP’s unaffected share price. KCP’s board created a special committee of four independent directors to negotiate with Mr. Cole, who conditioned his bid on the approval of the special committee and the affirmative vote of a majority of the minority stockholders. Mr. Cole made it publicly clear that he would not entertain any offers to sell his shares in a third party transaction and was only interested in buying shares from the minority stockholders. After several months of negotiations, Mr. Cole agreed to pay $15.25 per share. 99.8% of KCP’s shares unaffiliated with Mr. Cole that voted ultimately voted in favor of the transaction.
Historically, buyouts by controlling shareholders (also known as “going-private transactions,” “squeeze-outs,” and hereinafter “freezeouts”) were subject to different standards of judicial scrutiny under Delaware corporate law based on the transactional form used by the controlling shareholder to execute the deal. In a line of cases dating back at least to the Delaware Supreme Court’s 1994 decision in Kahn v. Lynch Communications, a freezeout executed as a statutory merger was subject to stringent “entire fairness” review, due to the self-dealing nature of the transaction. In contrast, in a line of cases beginning with the Delaware Chancery Court’s 2001 opinion in In re Siliconix Inc. Shareholder Litigation, a freezeout executed as a tender offer was subject to deferential business judgment review.
Subramanian (2007) presents evidence that, after Siliconix, minority shareholders received less in tender offer freezeouts than in merger freezeouts. Restrepo (2013) finds that these differences in outcomes occurred only after Siliconix, and that the incidence of tender offer freezeouts increased after this opinion, also supporting the idea that controlling shareholders took advantage of the opportunity provided by Siliconix. Subramanian (2005) describes why these differences in outcomes for minority shareholders create a social welfare loss and not just a one-time wealth transfer from minority shareholders to the controlling shareholder.
In the paper, The Sensitivity of Corporate Cash Holdings to Corporate Governance, forthcoming in the Review of Financial Studies, my co-authors (Qi Chen, Xiao Chen, Yongxin Xu, and Jian Xue) and I analyze the change in cash holdings of a large sample of Chinese-listed firms associated with the split share structure reform that required nontradable shares held by controlling shareholders to be converted to tradable shares, subject to shareholder approval and adequate compensation to tradable shareholders. The reform removed a substantial market friction and gave controlling shareholders a clear incentive to care about share prices, because they could benefit from share value increases by selling some of their shares for cash.
We predict and find that this governance improvement led to reduced cash holdings of affected firms, and that the effect is more pronounced for private firms than for state-owned enterprises (SOEs), for firms with more agency conflicts, and for firms for which financial constraints are most binding. We interpret these results as consistent with both a direct free cash flow channel and an indirect financial constraint channel. These results are robust to several alternative specifications that address concerns about endogeneity and concomitant effects. They provide strong evidence that governance arrangements affect firms’ cash holdings and cash management behaviors. To the extent that cash management is a key operational decision that affects firm value, our findings suggest an important mechanism for corporate governance to affect firm value.
In our paper Ownership Dynamics with Large Shareholders: an Empirical Analysis, forthcoming in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, we study ownership dynamics in a country where controlling shareholders are prevalent. We find that ownership structures are very persistent and that pyramidal structures are associated with less dispersion than other control structures. We also find that dilution is preceded by higher returns and predicts low returns in the future, which is a typical feature of market timing.
It is an established fact that ownership is typically dispersed in the US and the UK, but concentrated in the rest of the world. Yet, why is it that markets do not converge to the dispersed ownership paradigm of the US/UK? Why is it that approximately 20% of firms in the US and UK are tightly controlled, whereas 70% of firms in Continental Europe are tightly controlled? What prevents controlling shareholders from diluting their stakes in the firms they control? We aim to provide an answer to these questions by examining Chilean firms’ ownership dynamics in a 20 year period (1990-2009). We benefit from Chile’s unique features, such as improvements in the protection to minority shareholders, economy’s steep growth (per capita GDP more than doubled in PPP terms), markets’ booms and busts, and excellent data sources. Despite these unique features, what we learn sheds light on ownership dynamics in a number of different markets, as Chile is similar to other developed and emerging economies in terms of financial development, the overall level of ownership concentration, and protection to minority shareholders.
According to a reform applicable as of January 1, 2012, the right to deduct interest due with respect to the purchase of shares in French target companies will be denied, unless the French acquiring company demonstrates — by any means — that (i) the decisions relating to such shares and (ii) the control over the target companies are effectively made by it or by a related party established in France.
For the purpose of this reform, a related party can be a controlling company or an entity controlled by or under common control with the acquiring company.
This new rule targets the purchase of shareholdings that are eligible for the French long-term participation exemption regime, i.e. mainly shares that represent at least 5% of the financial and voting rights of companies (other than certain real estate property companies).
On December 14, 2011, the FTSE Group published the results of its market consultation on the minimum free float  requirements for inclusion of premium London-listed companies  in the FTSE UK Index Series – one of the most recognized indices in the world, which includes the FTSE 100 Index. The key outcome of the consultation is that, as of January 1, 2012, the minimum free float required for UK-incorporated companies will increase from 15% to 25%, with grandfathering of existing FTSE companies until January 1, 2014.
I. Current Free Float Requirements
Under the FTSE Ground Rules, companies that wish to be included in the FTSE UK Index Series must maintain a minimum free float:
- of at least 50%, if not incorporated in the UK; or
- of at least 15% (or 5% where the relevant company’s market capitalization exceeds US $5 billion), if incorporated in the UK.
On October 14, 2011, Chancellor Strine of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued a decision in In re Southern Peru Copper Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litig., C.A. No. 961-CS. In the 105-page decision, Chancellor Strine ultimately found that the controlling stockholder defendants had breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty and awarded damages of over $1.2 billion, which may be paid by the controlling stockholder by returning some of the stock consideration received from the controlled company in the transaction. The decision provides important guidance for companies engaging in M&A transactions with their controlling stockholders.
In 2004, Southern Peru Copper Corporation, an NYSE-listed mining company, received a proposal from its majority stockholder, Grupo Mexico, S.A.B. de C.V. Under the proposal, Southern Peru would acquire Grupo Mexico’s 99.15% interest in Minera Mexico, S.A. de C.V., a non-publicly traded Mexican mining company, for $3.1 billion in Southern Peru stock. Because of Grupo Mexico’s self-interest in the transaction, Southern Peru formed a Special Committee of disinterested directors to consider the transaction. The Special Committee retained its own financial and legal advisors.
Recently, a debate has emerged about the merits of certain proposed piecemeal reforms to the Williams Act’s 13(d) disclosure regime. The aim of our paper, The Williams Act: A Truly “Modern” Assessment, is to examine the implications of these proposals and to suggest that, before making any changes to the regime, the Commission should undertake a comprehensive review of the role of the Williams Act in today’s market and decide what best serves overall shareholder interests. The paper was prepared on behalf of certain members of the Managed Funds Association and was sent in advance of various meetings with the Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission and with certain SEC Commissioners. The participants at those meetings included Pershing Square Capital and JANA Partners, as well as BlackRock, California State Teachers’ Retirement System, Florida State Board of Administration, The New York State Common Retirement Fund, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board, TIAA-CREFF, T. Rowe Price, and pension fund representatives of Change to Win and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.
The Williams Act: An Historical Perspective
Enacted in 1968, the Williams Act was a response to a wave of hostile coercive takeover attempts, primarily cash tender offers. At the time the Williams Act was passed, the vast majority of shares were owned by individual shareholders, a fragmented and ill-informed group unprepared to exert their rights as shareholders. Cash tender offers posed the real risk of destroying value by forcing shareholders to tender their shares on a compressed timetable.