Yearly Archives: 2012

Financing-Motivated Acquisitions

Posted by R. Christopher Small, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on
Friday, April 27, 2012
, ,
More from: , ,

The following post comes to us from Isil Erel, Yee Jin Jang, and Michael Weisbach, all of the Department of Finance at The Ohio State University.

In the paper, Financing-Motivated Acquisitions, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we evaluate the extent to which acquisitions lower financial constraints on a sample of 5,187 European acquisitions occurring between 2001 and 2008. Each of these targets remains a subsidiary of its new parent, so we can observe the target’s financial policies following the acquisition. We examine whether these post-acquisition financial policies reflect improved access to capital.

Managers often justify acquisitions with the logic that they can add value to targets by facilitating the target’s ability to invest efficiently. In addition to the operational synergies emphasized by the academic literature, financial synergies potentially come from the ability to use the acquirer’s assets to help finance the target’s investments more efficiently. However, examining this view empirically is difficult, since for most acquisitions, one cannot observe data on target firms on subsequent to being acquired. Because of disclosure requirements in European countries, we are able to construct a sample of European acquisitions containing financial data on target firms both before and after the acquisitions. We use this sample to test the hypothesis that financial synergies are one factor that motivates acquisitions.

READ MORE »

Establishing a “Domestic Transaction” in Securities under Morrison

Posted by Brad S. Karp, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, on
Thursday, April 26, 2012
, , , , ,
More from: ,

Brad Karp is chairman and partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. This post is based on a Paul Weiss client memorandum.

In its 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), the Supreme Court addressed whether Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act applies to a securities transaction involving foreign investors, foreign issuers and/or securities traded on foreign exchanges. The Morrison decision curtailed the extraterritorial application of the federal securities laws by holding that Section 10(b) applies only to (a) transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges or (b) domestic transactions in other securities.

In Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Ficeto, et al., Docket No. 11-0221-cv (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2012), the Second Circuit addressed for the first time what constitutes a “domestic transaction” in securities not listed on a U.S. exchange. The Court held that, to establish a domestic transaction in securities not listed on a U.S. exchange, plaintiffs must allege facts plausibly showing either that irrevocable liability was incurred or that title was transferred within the United States.

Plaintiffs in Absolute Activist were nine Cayman Island hedge funds (the “Funds”) that had engaged Absolute Capital Management Holdings (“ACM”) to act as their investment manager. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the ACM management defendants engaged in a variation of a pump-and-dump scheme. Specifically, defendants were alleged to have caused the Funds to purchase billions of shares of U.S. penny stocks issued by thinly capitalized U.S. companies – stocks that defendants themselves also owned – and then to have traded those stocks among the Funds in a way that artificially drove up the share value. Defendants thereby were alleged to have profited both from the fees generated through the fraudulent trading activity and the profits they earned when they sold their shares of the penny stocks at a profit to the Funds.

READ MORE »

Public Investors and the Risks of Non-Corporate Governance

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on
Thursday, April 26, 2012
, , , ,
More from: ,

The following post comes to us from Kimberly Gladman, Director of Research and Risk Analytics at GovernanceMetrics International, and is based on a GMI Ratings report by Ms. Gladman and Beth M. Young.

Companies whose initial public offerings (IPOs) take the form of limited partnerships (LPs), rather than corporations, may pose special risks to investors. LP owners do not have the same legal rights as corporate shareholders, and standards of director independence and fiduciary duty do not protect investors’ interests to the same degree. The governance disadvantages of LPs may not be reflected in IPO prices, but could lead to price declines if they are subsequently recognized by the market.

The Carlyle Controversy

U.S. alternative asset manager Carlyle Group stirred controversy recently when it announced it would go public as a limited partnership with very limited rights for public investors. Most strikingly, the company’s IPO documents initially contained a provision that would have forced investors who wanted to sue the company for any reason to resolve their disputes through private arbitration. Investors would have been barred from using the courts even for securities class actions alleging stock price manipulation and fraud. However, the mandatory arbitration provision did not pass muster with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which required its removal in order for the offering to proceed. Without that provision, Carlyle’s governance looks a lot like that of Fortress, Blackstone, KKR, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, and other companies that have gone public in the last few years as LPs rather than corporations. So can Carlyle’s would-be investors set their minds at ease?

READ MORE »

Contingent Consideration in Bridging Valuation Gaps

Posted by Edward D. Herlihy, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
, , ,
More from: ,

Edward Herlihy is a partner and co-chairman of the Executive Committee at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton firm memorandum from Mr. Herlihy, David E. Shapiro, Matthew M. Guest, David M. Adlerstein, and Jenna E. Levine.

The recovering, but still uncertain, economy and real estate markets have led to diverging opinions and concerns over the future value of a target’s assets which might otherwise prevent agreement on transaction pricing. As discussed in prior memos, contingent consideration structures have for years been used to bridge differences between buyers and sellers in uncertain times. With the burgeoning trend of increased M&A activity involving smaller banks, it is important to remember that these structures, while requiring careful thought, can be useful in both small and large deals alike to creatively address pricing challenges.

Capital Bank Financial Corp.’s recently announced agreement to acquire Southern Community Financial Corporation is the third transaction in the last 18 months in which that acquiror has utilized a contingent value right, or CVR, as a portion of the consideration. The CVR provides the opportunity for additional value to Southern Community shareholders if the portfolio performance exceeds a designated benchmark, while allowing Capital Bank to limit its exposure if performance should deteriorate. It has a value determined by the performance of Southern Community’s legacy loan and foreclosed asset portfolio at the end of a five-year period. Payments under the CVR may range from zero to $1.30 per share in addition to the primary merger consideration of $2.875 per share. Any payments would only be made at the end of the five-year measurement period. The CVR was structured so as not to require registration with the SEC, avoiding not only the cost of registration but also the ongoing reporting requirements. Consequently, the CVR is not transferable, does not grant any voting or dividend rights, bears no stated rate of interest, and will not be certificated.

READ MORE »

The Efficacy of Shareholder Voting

Posted by David F. Larcker, Stanford Graduate School of Business, on
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
, , ,
More from:

David Larcker is the James Irvin Miller Professor of Accounting at Stanford University.

In the paper, The Efficacy of Shareholder Voting: Evidence from Equity Compensation Plans, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, my co-authors (Christopher Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania and Ian Gow of Harvard Business School) and I examine the efficacy of shareholder voting in effecting changes in corporate policy. We focus on the effects of shareholder voting on equity-based compensation plans on firms’ executive compensation policies for two reasons. First, equity compensation plans are widespread and require shareholder approval, making votes on these plans the most common subject of shareholder voting after director elections and auditor ratification. Second, equity compensation proposals attract much higher levels of shareholder disapproval than most other company-sponsored proposals that are put to shareholder vote (e.g., director elections and auditor ratification nearly always receive in excess of 90% shareholder support), making them a more powerful setting for empirical analysis.

Of the 619 management-sponsored proposals rejected by shareholders between 2001 and 2010, 183 (30%) related to equity compensation plans. For the 2,659 management-sponsored proposals where Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), a leading proxy advisory firm, recommended a vote against the proposal, 1,719 (65%) related to equity compensation plans. Moreover, ISS recommended against 27% of the 6,270 equity compensation plans considered between 2001 and 2010. Although only 2% of equity compensation proposals fail to receive the required level of shareholder support, this is substantially larger than the 0.07% failure rate for director elections, which have received considerably greater attention in recent research on shareholder voting and executive compensation.

READ MORE »

Final Rule on Designation of Systemically Important Companies

Posted by H. Rodgin Cohen, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, on
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
, , , ,
More from: , ,

H. Rodgin Cohen is a partner and senior chairman of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP focusing on acquisition, corporate governance, regulatory and securities law matters. This post is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell LLP publication by Samuel Woodall.

Recently, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“Council”) unanimously approved a final rule (the “Final Rule”) and related interpretive guidance (the “Final Guidance”) under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), [1] regarding the designation of systemically important nonbank financial companies (often referred to as nonbank “SIFIs”). The Final Rule and Final Guidance describe how the Council will apply the statutory designation standards and the procedures it intends to employ in exercising this authority. Designated companies are required to comply with enhanced prudential standards and are subject to consolidated supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”). The Federal Reserve’s recent proposal regarding these enhanced standards suggests that this will be a comprehensive and rigorous regulatory regime. [2]

The Final Rule and Final Guidance, which are substantially similar to the Council’s October 2011 proposed rule and guidance (the “October 2011 Proposal”), [3] do not provide significant new insight as to which companies will ultimately be designated. Nonetheless, it is an important initial procedural step to enable the actual designation process to begin. Secretary of the Treasury Geithner, who chairs the Council, has indicated that the first of these designations will be made this year.

READ MORE »

SEC Investigation Recognizes Individual’s Contribution

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
, , ,
More from: ,

The following post comes to us from John H. Sturc, co-chair of the Securities Enforcement Practice Group at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and is based on a Gibson Dunn alert.

On March 19, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced that it had credited the substantial cooperation of a former senior executive of an investment adviser in an investigation [1] by declining to take enforcement action against him. The SEC’s announcement can be found here. This is the first time the SEC has publicly recognized the cooperation of an individual since the announcement two years ago of its policy statement intended to incentivize individuals to cooperate in investigations, found here. [2] This announcement provides some much needed insight into the potential benefits of cooperating in an SEC investigation. However, the unique facts of the case mean that it will have limited application to other cases.

I. SEC’s Cooperative Initiative

As we have discussed in a prior alert, SEC’s Initiative to Foster Cooperation–Perspective and Analysis (Jan. 14, 2010), [3], the SEC announced a new policy under which individuals could cooperate in an enforcement investigation to avoid a civil enforcement action or receive a lesser sanction. Although the evaluation of cooperation requires a case-by-case analysis of the specific circumstances presented, the Cooperation Policy Statement explained that the SEC’s general approach would be to determine whether, how much, and in what manner to credit cooperation by individuals by evaluating four considerations: (1) the assistance provided by the cooperating individual in the SEC’s investigation or related enforcement actions; (2) the importance of the underlying matter in which the individual cooperated; (3) the societal interest in ensuring that the cooperating individual is held accountable for his or her misconduct; and (4) the appropriateness of cooperation credit based upon the profile of the cooperating individual.

READ MORE »

The Revised EU and US Regulatory Frameworks for Commodity Derivatives

Posted by Barnabas Reynolds, Shearman & Sterling, on
Monday, April 23, 2012
, , , , , ,
More from: ,

Barnabas Reynolds is head of the global Financial Institutions Advisory & Financial Regulatory Group at Shearman & Sterling LLP. This post is based on a Shearman & Sterling client publication; the full publication, including footnotes, is available here.

Users of commodity derivatives markets are now facing major changes under proposed European and US legislation. Stronger supervision of the commodity derivatives market is one of the key areas of the G20 regulatory reform agenda. In Europe, the European Commission is proposing to regulate the activities of a wider range of commodity derivatives traders through amendments to MiFID. End-users will become subject to mandatory clearing requirements for OTC derivative transactions above certain thresholds once the recently agreed EMIR proposal comes into force. For the first time, the wholesale energy market and the commodity spot market will become subject to the market abuse regime. In the US, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act brings in a comprehensive reform of the OTC derivatives market. This publication gives an overview of the impact of the various recent European and US regulatory changes from the perspective of non-financial businesses involved in commodity derivatives trading.

Introduction

Various proposals have been introduced since the onset of the financial crisis to strengthen financial regulation across the full spectrum of financial services at international, EU and domestic levels. Previous client publications address many of these proposals. This publication draws together various threads of regulation in the context of their impact on commodity derivatives trading.

READ MORE »

Endogeneity and the Dynamics of Internal Corporate Governance

Posted by R. Christopher Small, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on
Monday, April 23, 2012
, , ,
More from: , ,

The following post comes to us from M. Babajide Wintoki of the Department of Finance at the University of Kansas, and James Linck and Jeffry Netter, both of the Department of Banking and Finance at the University of Georgia.

In our forthcoming Journal of Financial Economics paper, Endogeneity and the Dynamics of Internal Corporate Governance, we use a well-developed dynamic panel generalized method of moments (GMM) estimator to alleviate endogeneity concerns in two aspects of corporate governance research: the effect of board structure on firm performance and the determinants of board structure. It is well known that theoretical and empirical research in corporate finance is complicated by the endogenous relation that exists between the control forces operating on a firm and its decisions. Jensen (1993) broadly classifies these control forces (i.e., governance in a broad sense) as capital markets, the regulatory system, product and factor markets, and internal governance. In much of the extant corporate finance research, researchers attempt to either explain the causes or examine the effects of corporate finance decisions as related to one or more of these control forces. Empirical research often involves determining the causal effect, if any, of a firm characteristic (X) on some measure of firm profits or value (Y). This is usually done using the inference from a regression of Y on X along with several control variables (Z). The question is often framed as: holding Z constant, does X have an economically and statistically significant causal effect on Y?

READ MORE »

ISS Influence on 2012 Shareholder Voting

Posted by James R. Copland, Manhattan Institute, on
Sunday, April 22, 2012
, , , , , , ,
More from:

James R. Copland is director of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy. This post is based on a memorandum from the Proxy Monitor project; the memo is available here.

Corporate America’s proxy season—when companies hold annual meetings and shareholders vote on various proposals submitted to them on proxy statements—is now under way. As of March 15, 51 of the largest 200 companies by revenues, as ranked by Fortune magazine, had announced their annual meetings and mailed proxy materials to shareholders. Of those companies, 11 have already held meetings, with four more—Hewlett Packard on March 21, Exelon on April 2, Bank of New York Mellon on April 10, and United Technologies on April 11—scheduled to meet before the annual meeting cycle begins in earnest in mid-April.

In 2011, the Manhattan Institute launched its ProxyMonitor.org database, which catalogs shareholder proposals at America’s largest companies. Drawing upon information from the database, we have been examining a growing trend in shareholder activism wherein investors attempt to influence management and corporate practices through the shareholder voting process, sometimes in ways not directly related to maintaining or increasing shareholder value. [1]

This finding summarizes early trends in 2012 shareholder proposal findings and examines 2012 results to date in shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation—including the significant role played by the shareholder advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). This report also looks ahead to significant classes of shareholder proposals on the horizon that I have previously identified as items to watch for this year [2] — proposals relating to corporate campaign finance and political spending, proposals to separate the positions of corporate chairman and CEO, and proposals to grant shareholders proxy access for their director nominees. While votes on these issues have not occurred to date, several such proposals are on proxy ballots in the coming weeks, and we expect these to be major issues during this proxy season.

READ MORE »

Page 44 of 63
1 … 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 … 63