Yearly Archives: 2015

Federal Reserve Provides Guidance on Bank M&A

Posted by Edward D. Herlihy, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz , on
Friday, July 10, 2015
, , ,
More from: , , ,

Edward D. Herlihy is a partner and co-chairman of the Executive Committee at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. The following post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Herlihy, Richard K. Kim, and Matthew M. Guest.

The Federal Reserve Board approved BB&T’s application to acquire Susquehanna Bancshares earlier this week and set the stage for an August 1 closing—just over eight months from the date of announcement. The BB&T/Susquehanna transaction will be the largest U.S. bank merger in recent years to close within this timeframe. This acquisition follows closely after the timely approval of two other smaller acquisitions by BB&T, of Bank of Kentucky in June and of former Citibank branches in Texas in February. The series of promptly completed transactions reflects well on BB&T’s M&A and regulatory approach and continues its long history of successful deal-making.

Also very recently, another successful and acquisitive bank, Sterling Bancorp, completed its acquisition of Hudson Valley Holding Corp. This transaction was transformative in taking Sterling above $10 billion in assets—an important threshold for regulatory purposes which triggers requirements for annual stress tests, caps on debit card interchange fees and other new requirements. Again, the transaction was completed within 8 months of announcement and in line with market expectations, despite protests by community groups pursuant to the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”).

READ MORE »

Merger Price and Process Win the Day Yet Again In Delaware Appraisal Action

Posted by Jason M. Halper, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, on
Friday, July 10, 2015
, , , , , , ,
More from: , ,

Jason M. Halper is partner in the Securities Litigation & Regulatory Enforcement Practice Group at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. This post is based on an Orrick publication by Mr. Halper and Gregory Beaman. This post is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On June 30, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a post-trial opinion in which it yet again rejected a dissenting shareholder’s attempt to extract consideration for its shares above the merger price through appraisal rights. See LongPath Capital, LLC v. Ramtron Int’l Corp., Slip. Op. June 30, 2015, C.A. No. 8094-VCP (Del. Ch. June 30, 2015). LongPath is just the latest decision in which the Chancery Court has upheld merger price as the most reliable indicator of fair value where it was the result of a fair and adequate process. Vice Chancellor Parsons’ opinion reaffirms the importance of merger price and process in Delaware appraisal actions, and offers helpful guidance to companies, directors and their counsel in defending against claims that the company was sold at too low a price.

READ MORE »

SPAC-and-Span: A Clean Exit?

Posted by Carol Anne Huff and Daniel E. Wolf, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, on
Thursday, July 9, 2015
, , , ,
More from: , ,

Carol Anne Huff is a partner at Kirkland & Ellis who practices corporate and securities laws, with an emphasis on the representation of private equity firms and public companies in capital markets transactions and in mergers, acquisitions and divestitures. The following post is based on a Kirkland memorandum by Ms. Huff and Daniel Wolf.

While robust M&A and IPO markets have given investors solid liquidity options, in some cases selling a company to a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, can be an appealing alternative. Recent examples in the United States include the $500 million acquisition by Levy Acquisition Corp. of Del Taco in June 2015 and the pending $879 million acquisition by Boulevard Acquisition Corp. of AgroFresh Inc., a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. In the UK, notable examples include Burger King going public in 2012 through a $1.4 billion merger with a UK SPAC.

READ MORE »

Delaware LLC and Partnership Law

Posted by Gregory P. Williams, Richards, Layton & Finger, LLP, on
Thursday, July 9, 2015
, , , , ,
More from: ,

Gregory P. Williams is chair of the Corporate Department at Richards, Layton & Finger. This post is based on a Richards, Layton & Finger publication, and is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Delaware has recently adopted legislation amending the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (LLC Act), the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (LP Act) and the Delaware Revised Uniform Partnership Act (GP Act) (collectively, the LLC and Partnership Acts). The following is a brief summary of some of the more significant amendments that affect Delaware limited liability companies (Delaware LLCs), Delaware limited partnerships (Delaware LPs) and Delaware general partnerships (Delaware GPs).

Default Class or Group Voting Requirements Eliminated

The LLC Act and the LP Act have been amended to eliminate the default class or group voting requirements in connection with the merger or consolidation, transfer or continuance, conversion, dissolution and winding up of a Delaware LLC or Delaware LP and the termination and winding up of a series of a Delaware LLC or Delaware LP. The recent amendments provide that, in connection with the foregoing matters, the default class or group voting requirements under the LLC Act and the LP Act, as in effect on July 31, 2015, will continue to apply to a Delaware LLC or Delaware LP whose original certificate of formation or certificate of limited partnership was filed with the Delaware Secretary of State and is effective on or before July 31, 2015, unless otherwise provided in a limited liability company agreement or partnership agreement.

READ MORE »

Florida SBA Proxy Contest Voting Decisions Drive Shareowner Value

Posted by Michael P. McCauley, Florida State Board of Administration, on
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
, , , ,
More from: , , , , ,

Michael McCauley is Senior Officer, Investment Programs & Governance, of the Florida State Board of Administration (the “SBA”). This post relates to an SBA report authored by Mr. McCauley, Jacob Williams, Tracy Stewart, Hugh Brown, and Michael Levin.

The State Board of Administration (SBA) of Florida recently completed a first-of-its-kind empirical analysis of an institutional investor’s proxy voting decisions involving dual board nominees and their impact on portfolio value. The study examined the SBA’s own voting decisions covering proxy contests occurring between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2014 at U.S.-domiciled companies with market capitalizations exceeding $100 million. The SBA’s total investment across all examined companies, at the time of the initial announcement of the proxy contest, equaled $1.9 billion. The study also provides coverage of the types of activist fund campaigns, level of activity, and several specific proxy vote case studies.

The authors of the study believe the quantitative results provide evidence of a sound analytical framework employed by SBA staff in evaluating proxy contests, and the historical proxy voting decisions enhanced portfolio performance through improved investment returns over both short and long time periods. Among SBA votes to support one or more dissident nominees where the dissident won seats, the company’s subsequent 1, 3, and 5-year relative cumulative stock performance was positive, at levels of 12%, 21%, and 26%, respectively. The same returns for cases where SBA supported the dissident but management won all seats were negative, at -14%, -16%, and -15%. The study demonstrates that the proxy voting decisions of investors can have significant and positive economic effects on portfolio value.

READ MORE »

Second Circuit Decision Could Disrupt Secondary Market for Bank-Originated Loans

Posted by Bryan Chegwidden, Ropes & Gray LLP, on
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
, , , , , , ,
More from: ,

Bryan Chegwidden is partner and co-leader of the Investment Management Group at Ropes & Gray LLP. This post is based on a Ropes & Gray alert.

A May 22, 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit appears to disturb the generally settled body of law concerning the status of non-bank investors with respect to applicable usury laws for bank-originated loans. As assignees of a national bank, such non-bank investors were generally deemed to stand in the shoes of the bank with respect to applicable usury laws. However, in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, [1] the Second Circuit rejected this principle and held that the usury laws of the debtor’s jurisdiction could apply to non-bank investors. Consequently, unless reversed, Madden could significantly disrupt the secondary market for bank loans originated by national banks, as well as affect the valuation of such loans already held by non-bank investors. Bank lenders, securitization platforms and non-bank investors, including specialty debt funds, could be affected.

READ MORE »

Attorney-Whistleblowing and Conflicting Regulatory Regimes

Posted by Jennifer M. Pacella, City University of New York, Baruch College, Zicklin School of Business, on
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
, , , , , , ,
More from:

Jennifer M. Pacella is Assistant Professor of Law at City University of New York (CUNY), Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College.

In my latest article, Conflicted Counselors: Retaliation Protections for Attorney-Whistleblowers in an Inconsistent Regulatory Regime, I examine the ever-evolving issue of attorney-whistleblowing, the reporting requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) of attorneys representing issuer-clients, the potential for conflict of these requirements with the rules of professional conduct in various states, and the lack of retaliation protections for attorneys subject to these rules. Although attorney-whistleblowing undoubtedly invokes concerns about ethics and client relationships, SOX requires attorneys who “appear and practice” before the Securities and Exchange Commission to internally blow the whistle on their clients by reporting evidence of material violations of the law “up-the-ladder” when they represent issuers. If an attorney fails to adhere to these requirements, he/she will be subject to SEC-imposed civil penalties and disciplinary action. The SOX rules also allow an attorney to make a permissive disclosure to the SEC, revealing confidential information without the issuer-client’s consent, in certain instances, including when the attorney reasonably believes necessary to prevent substantial financial injury to the issuer.

READ MORE »

Court of Chancery Again Looks to Merger Price in Appraisal Ruling

Posted by Theodore N. Mirvis, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on
Monday, July 6, 2015
, , , , , ,
More from: , , ,

Theodore N. Mirvis is a partner in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. The following post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Mirvis, William Savitt, and Ryan A. McLeod. This post is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

The Delaware Court of Chancery this week held that the “fair value” payable in a statutory appraisal proceeding was less than the merger price. LongPath Capital, LLC v. Ramtron Int’l Corp., C.A. No. 8094-VCP (Del. Ch. June 30, 2015). The decision adds to a growing body of Delaware case law confirming the importance of the market in establishing fair value in the context of increasingly frequent (and increasingly economically significant) “appraisal arbitrage” litigation.

The case arose from Cypress Semiconductor Corp.’s hostile bid for Ramtron in 2012. In response to the bid, Ramtron tested the market but no other buyers emerged. Ramtron eventually agreed to be acquired by Cypress for $3.10 per share, a substantial premium to the stock’s trading price. After the merger was announced, LongPath, a hedge fund in the business of buying appraisal claims, acquired almost 500,000 shares of Ramtron, with the purpose of bringing an appraisal action.

READ MORE »

Proxy Access: The 2015 Proxy Season and Beyond

Posted by Marc S. Gerber and Richard J. Grossman, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, on
Monday, July 6, 2015
, , , , , , ,
More from: , ,

Marc S. Gerber and Richard J. Grossman are partners in the Mergers & Acquisitions practice at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on a Skadden alert.

Although the 2015 annual meeting season is still winding down, there is no doubt that proxy access has gained considerable momentum and will remain a front-and-center corporate governance issue for the foreseeable future. For the boards of directors of the many companies who were bystanders on this issue for the 2015 proxy season, the question will be whether to act now or wait and watch for further developments. In any event, as proxy access is likely to be a topic of discussion during companies’ “off season” shareholder engagement efforts, companies and their boards should understand how the proxy access landscape has evolved.

The Lead-Up to 2015

In important ways, the groundwork for the 2015 proxy access campaign was carefully laid in the 2012-14 proxy seasons. Targets of proxy access shareholder proposals modeled on the vacated SEC proxy access rule—granting holders of 3 percent of a company’s shares for three years access to the company’s proxy statement for nominees for up to 25 percent of the board—were carefully selected, and a coalition of institutional investors came together to provide majority support for most of these proposals. As a result, a small number of large companies—including Hewlett-Packard, Western Union, CenturyLink and Verizon Communications—walked through the proxy access door, making it only a matter of time before other companies—willingly or unwillingly—would have to follow.

READ MORE »

DGCL Amendments Authorize Exclusive Forum Provisions and Prohibit Fee-Shifting Provisions

Posted by Laura D. Richman and Andrew J. Noreuil, Mayer Brown LLP, on
Monday, July 6, 2015
, , , , , ,
More from: , ,

Laura D. Richman is counsel and Andrew J. Noreuil is partner at Mayer Brown LLP. This post is based on a Mayer Brown Legal Update, and is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

A great deal of attention has been paid over the past few years to efforts made by corporations to control in which courts internal corporate claims may be brought or to compel unsuccessful plaintiffs in internal corporate claims to pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees and costs. Recently enacted amendments [1] to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) address, among other things, two types of charter or bylaw provisions on these topics that some companies have adopted.

The amendments specifically authorize provisions that specify Delaware as the exclusive forum for internal corporate claims, defined as “claims, including claims in the right of the corporation, (i) that are based upon a violation of a duty by a current or former director or officer or stockholder in such capacity, or (ii) as to which this title confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Chancery.” However, the amendments ban fee-shifting provisions that would impose liability for attorneys’ fees and costs on stockholders bringing unsuccessful internal corporate claims. The amendments to the DGCL become effective on August 1, 2015.

READ MORE »

Page 29 of 60
1 … 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 … 60