Daily Archives: Saturday, October 24, 2020

The Next Frontier for Representations and Warranties Insurance: Public M&A Deals?

Igor Kirman and Ian Boczko are partners and Nicholas C.E. Walter is an associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on their article, originally published in The M&A Lawyer. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Are M&A Contract Clauses Value Relevant to Target and Bidder Shareholders? by John C. Coates, Darius Palia, and Ge Wu (discussed on the Forum here); and The New Look of Deal Protection by Fernan Restrepo and Guhan Subramanian (discussed on the Forum here).

Recent years have witnessed a surge in the number of M&A deals that use representations and warranties insurance (“RWI”). According to a recent study, in 2018 to 2019, 52% of private company transaction agreements referred to RWI, up from only 29% in 2016 to 2017. [1] Yet, despite its dramatic growth in the private company deal market, RWI has so far been almost entirely absent from public M&A transactions (“public company deals”) in the U.S. The question is why.

One key difference between private and public company deals is the availability of post-closing recourse for the buyer. In private company deals, which typically involve the sale of a company by a small number of shareholders or the sale of a subsidiary by a large company, buyers expect sellers to indemnify them for breaches of reps. In contrast, in public company deals, where target companies are usually owned by many shareholders who trade in and out of the shares in the public markets, there traditionally has been no post-closing indemnity, in part because of the view that there would be no one left to pay it. In recent years, we have also seen a rise in a type of blank check company called a special purpose acquisition vehicle (“SPAC”), which raises money in an IPO for the purpose of acquiring other companies. [2] Most “de-SPAC” transactions, whereby the public SPAC vehicle buys a private target, thus taking the target public, do not involve a seller that provides indemnification recourse (for a number of reasons, including dispersed share ownership). Thus, SPAC deals are another category, similar in some respects to a “public deal,” where RWI can fill an indemnification gap.

READ MORE »

COVID-19 and Inequality: A Test of Corporate Purpose

Bronagh Ward is director and Vittoria Bufalari is senior associate at KKS Advisors. This post is based on a KKS memorandum by Ms. Ward, Ms. Bufalari, Mark Tulay, Richa Joshi, Nick Cohn Martin, and Sara E. Murphy. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum here); For Whom Corporate Leaders Bargain by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Kobi Kastiel, and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum here); and Toward Fair and Sustainable Capitalism by Leo E. Strine, Jr (discussed on the Forum here).

Before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world’s largest and most influential companies made promises to their stakeholders. In 2019, 181 CEOs in the Business Roundtable—a group that includes major companies such as Amazon, Apple, and Bank of America—redefined the purpose of a corporation to one that delivers value to all stakeholders, not just shareholders. The statement immediately hit the headlines and was received with equal measures of applause and skepticism.

At the 50-year anniversary of Milton Friedman’s famous statement that the one and only social responsibility of business Is to increase profits, is it possible we are witnessing a turning point in how companies view their responsibilities? If it is the dawn of a new model of purpose-driven leadership, then 2020 is a make or break year for companies to live up to their commitments. The global pandemic and the death of George Floyd have sent seismic waves through the corporate community, pushing companies to take a decisive stance on how they treat their stakeholders during a crisis and their role in addressing inequality. Against a backdrop of growing corporate commitments on purpose and a state of global crisis, we conduct a quantitative stress test of corporate purpose. Analyzing a sample of companies constituting the S&P500 and FTSEEurofirst indexes, we employ three tests of corporate purpose:

READ MORE »