Firm Advice

Are All MOEs Created Equal?

[Editor’s Note:  The following post is a Kirkland & Ellis M&A Update, authored by Daniel E.WolfSarkis JebejianJoshua M. Zachariah, and David B. Feirstein.]

With valuations stabilizing and the M&A market heating up, a rebirth of stock-for-stock deals, after a long period of dominance for all-cash transactions, may bein the offing.

If this happens, we expect to see renewed use of the term “merger of equals” (MOE) to describe some of these all-equity combinations.  As a starting point, it may be helpful to define what an MOE is and, equally important, what it isn’t.  The term itself lacks legal significance or definition, with no requirements to qualify as an MOE and no specific rules and doctrines applicable as a result of the label.  Rather, the designation is mostly about market perception (and attempts to shape that perception), with the intent of presenting the deal as a combination of two relatively equal enterprises rather than a takeover of one by the other.  That said, MOEs generally share certain common characteristics.  First, a significant percentage of the equity of the surviving company will be received by each party’s shareholders.  Second, a low or no premium to the pre-announcement priceis paid to shareholders of the parties. Finally, there is some meaningful sharing or participation by both parties in “social” aspects of the surviving company.

While each of the aspects of an MOE deal will fall along a continuum of “equality” for the shareholders of each party, there are a handful of key issues that require special attention in an MOE transaction.  

Click here to read the entire Kirkland & Ellis LLP publication, discussing Social Issues, Change of Control, Shareholder Vote/Fiduciary Issues, Consideration, and Agreements.

Using the Web to Match Private Companies and Potential Investors: SEC No Action Letters Open a Door, but Questions Remain

[Editor’s Note:  The following post is a Goodwin Proctor Alert, which relays regulatory and legislative developments.]

In a no action letter dated March 26, 2013 (the “FC Letter”), the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) indicated that they would not recommend action against the operators of the FundersClub website (“FundersClub”) for failing to register as a broker/dealer under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act). Two days later, a similar letter (the “AL Letter”) was issued to the operators of the AngelList website (“AngelList”)

The Letters may remove one of the most significant obstacles to the development of a broad-scale, online business in which accredited investors are able to select and invest in private companies. However, the Letters are based upon a number of representations made by FundersClub and AngelList that may be difficult to defend or apply in practice. They also leave unaddressed a number of related legal issues. Thus, the Letters may represent only the beginning of a process in which entrepreneurs, investment managers, private companies, the Staff, the SEC and others explore and develop the rules and practices under which such a business may be operated.

This Client Alert briefly describes certain key issues and conclusions associated with the Letters and highlights some of the issues and risks that remain.

Click here to read the entire article.

[The Alert concludes that t]he Letters may be a key milestone in the development of a broad-based marketplace in which Web-based efficiencies are applied to matching (i) private companies seeking capital with (ii) accredited investors willing to provide it. Nevertheless, important open issues remain. In particular, the representations made by FundersClub and AngelList in obtaining the Letters may prove difficult to defend or apply in practice. Moreover, key questions (e.g., regarding general solicitation and the procedures by which investors may be verified as “accredited”) await further guidance from the SEC. Finally, other parties such as state regulators and various self-regulatory organizations have not yet weighed-in and may have a material impact.

Upcoming Events from the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy

Smart Course Planning: What to Take in Business Law and Why

Today, April 8th at 12:45 in Boalt Hall, Room 100, join BCLBE for an information session about next semester’s business law courses at Berkeley Law. Executive Director of BCLBE, Ken Taymor, along with several other Boalt faculty will preview Fall 2013 classes and highlight new course offerings. This is an opportunity for students to learn how the various business course offerings can help prepare them for professional practice. Miranda-Lin Bailey (Boalt ’04) from Aera Energy also will participate in the discussion and share her perspective on what coursework to pursue before graduation and why.

Registration is available here.

Corporate v. Litigation Practices, Presented by Paul Hastings

On Thursday, April 11th at 12:45 in Boalt Hall, Room 110, attorneys from Paul Hastings will present the differences between litigation and transactional work. Moderator Samantha Eldredge will discuss with the panel of Paul Hastings attorneys the differences in work, style, and necessary skills. The event is cosponsored by the Career Development Office and BCLBE.

To RSVP, please contact Sarah Cunniff. For questions, email Phyliss Martinez or Sarah Cunniff.

The First Five Years of China’s Antimonopoly Law

On Monday, April 15th at 12:45 in Boalt Hall, Room 110, Nathan Bush, a Partner in the Beijing and Singapore office of O’Melveny & Myers, will present on the first five years of Chinese antitrust enforcement under the Antimonopoly law and the future of Chinese competition policy under the new Xi Jinping government. The law is China’s first comprehensive competition statute. Since it took effect on August 1, 2008, China has emerged as a significant antitrust jurisdiction as its competition authorities have blocked or imposed conditions on worldwide mergers, fined foreign cartels, and even challenged the commercial practices of some state-owned enterprises.

CLE credit is available. Registration is available here.

FRB Governor Raskin Urges Banks to Take Proactive Role in Dealing with Reputational Risk

[Editor’s Note:  The following post is from Goodwin Proctor’s recent Financial Services Alert by Eric R. Fischer, Jackson B. R. Galloway, and Elizabeth Shea Fries.  This and other updates from Goodwin Proctor are available here.] 

On February 28, 2013, FRB Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin made a presentation entitled “Reflections on Reputation and its Consequences” to the 2013 Banking Outlook Conference at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.  Governor Raskin noted that, in the aftermath of the 2007-2009 financial crisis, financial institutions of all sizes have seen a decline in the public’s perception of their reputation and trustworthiness (and she added that the quality of their reputation is of particular importance to financial institutions).  Governor Raskin stated that the decline in public trust of, and confidence in, financial institutions has been increased recently by, among other things, “the Occupy Wall Street movement, payday loans, overdraft fees, rate-rigging settlements in London Interbank Offered Rate [LIBOR] cases, executive compensation and bonuses that seem to bear no relationship to performance or risk, failures in the foreclosure process, and a drumbeat of civil litigation.”

Please click here to read the rest of this entry.

Supreme Court Holds Proof of Materiality Is Not Necessary to Win Class Certification

[Editor’s note: The following post from Arnold & Porter’s recent Client Advisory on the implications of the recent Supreme Court decision in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds.  The authors include: Michael D. Trager, Veronica E. Rendon, and Scott B. Schreiber.]

In a February 27, 2013 ruling in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a plaintiff invoking the fraud-on-the market presumption to satisfy the reliance element of a securities fraud claim must prove, as a prerequisite to class certification, the materiality of the alleged misrepresentations.  In a six-to-three decision, the Court held that proof of materiality is not necessary at the class certification stage because the applicable provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) “requires a showing that questions common to the class predominate, not that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.”  The Court explained that materiality is an objective issue, the resolution of which necessarily applies in common to all members of a class.  Because materiality is an issue for which the class “is entirely cohesive” and will “prevail or fail in unison,” the Court concluded that proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to class certification.

Fraud on the Market

In Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), the Supreme Court first endorsed the “fraud-on-the-market” theory, which allows certain securities-fraud plaintiffs to invoke a rebuttable presumption of reliance on public, material misrepresentations.  The premise of the fraud-on-the-market theory is that, in an efficient market, the price of a security reflects all publicly available information about a company; therefore, a court may presume that a purchaser of the security has indirectly relied on that information at the class certification stage, although reliance could be challenged later in the proceedings.  The rebuttable presumption reflects the Court’s recognition of the evidentiary difficulties posed by requiring direct proof of reliance, which is an essential element of a securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The fraud-on-the-market presumption is of vital importance to plaintiffs seeking to certify a class action under Rule 23(b)(3).  As the Court explained in Amgen, without the presumption, questions of individual reliance would ordinarily predominate over questions common to the class, precluding class certification. 

To read the rest of this post, please click here.

Firm Advice: Your Weekly Update

The Dodd-Frank Act provides for unlimited FDIC insurance for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts until December 31, 2012. If Congress does not act to extend the unlimited insurance, coverage will revert to $250,000 on January 1, 2012. The FDIC recently issued a Financial Institution Letter advising banks on procedures for winding down the program should Congress not extend it. In a recent Financial Services Alert, Goodwin Proctor explains what institutions must do and should do by the end of the year, according to the Financial Institution Letter.

The recent decision in In re Zappos.com Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation considers the enforceability of “browsewrap” agreements, those in which users are bound to a website’s terms and conditions by accessing a website with posted terms.  Zappos.com sought to invoke the arbitration provision of its terms of use when users sued for an alleged security breach in which sensitive user data was revealed. The court held that the Zappos.com terms were unenforceable because the link to the terms was at the bottom of the page, requiring users to scroll to the bottom of the page, and were in the same size, font, and color as other non-significant links. Thus, users never actually assented to the terms. The court also found that the terms were illusory, and thus unenforceable, because Zappos.com retained the unilateral right to modify the terms without notice. In a recent client alert, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati explains the implications of the decision, as well as advice for making “browsewrap” agreements enforceable.

The Dodd-Frank Act contains 398 total rule-making requirements spread across various regulatory agencies. 133 rules have been finalized, and another 133 rules have been proposed, but not yet finalized. That leaves 132 rules outstanding.  In its recent Dodd-Frank Progress Report, Davis Polk breaks down the regulatory implementation of the Act across time, agency, and regulated activity. The Report also provides an overview of recently proposed and approved rules.

Firm Advice: Your Weekly Update

Last Year, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati surveyed the 45 venture-backed companies involved in the largest IPOs regarding their corporate governance and disclosure practices.  The firm recently published the results. The survey covers director selection, composition, and independence, as well as law firm and underwriter choice. Wilson Sonsini represented the most issuers, while Davis Polk represented the most underwriters. Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morgan were the most frequently chosen lead underwriters.

On October 11, the CFTC issued two interpretive letters offering guidance on which securitization vehicles and real estate investment trusts may enter swaps and still not register as a “commodity pool” subject to regulation and registration requirements of the CFTC. In general, the CFTC is “less likely to find that an entity is a commodity pool” if 1) the entity enters swaps only to hedge or mitigate risks from its primary business, and 2)the swaps are not expected to contribute materially to the profits of the entity.  In a recent News Bulletin, Morrison & Foerster explains the requirements and places them in the context of the Dodd-Frank Act.

New Berkeley Law Skills Course Opens Portal to the ‘Human Dimension’ of Lawyering

Since even before Dale Carnegie’s day, it has been common knowledge among climbers in the business world that aptitude will only get you so far — the key to success is in managing relationships.  For a long time, the self-help industry appeared to have the market cornered on offering tools for cultivating better interpersonal relations.  But modern neuroscience indicates that mastery of interpersonal dynamics (sometimes called ‘emotional’ or ‘social’ intelligence’) is actually a teachable skill set.  “Skills of Exceptional Lawyers–Social Intelligence and the Human Dimension” a relatively new addition to Berkeley Law’s course catalog, seeks to help law students harness these powerful skills.

The course, now in its third year at Boalt, covers a wide range of interpersonal skills including body language and facial expression recognition, the art of “difficult conversations,” rapport-building, conflict resolution, decision-making, and cultivating meaningful self-awareness. (more…)

Firm Advice: Your Weekly Update

As we mentioned earlier this week, Professor Bartlett soon will be presenting his paper on the value of the 10b-5 action to institutional investors. The paper uses evidence of trading behavior following the Supreme Court case Morrison v. National Australia Bank (2010)—a case that dealt with bringing securities fraud claims based on securities traded on foreign exchanges.  This week, Latham & Watkins presents the challenges of litigating securities fraud actions against foreign-based issuers of securities traded on domestic exchanges. These actions present special challenges in the areas of jurisdiction, service, and discovery. The paper, published as part of Bloomberg’s Securities Regulation & Law Report, is available for download here.

Skadden presents “The 2012 U.S. Supreme Court Term: Business Cases to Watch.” The upcoming term has several important business-related cases, including three class action cases: Amgen, Comcast, and The Standard Fire Insurance Co.  The court will also be considering in Royal Dutch Patroleum whether actions may be brought against companies for human rights abuses committed in other countries.  Skadden’s update provides brief summaries of these and other business-related cases facing the Court this term.

On November 1, EU Regulation 236/2012, which regulates the short selling of stock and sovereign debt in the European Economic Area, will come into effect. The regulation also places restrictions on taking uncovered short positions.  In a recent client alert, Ropes & Gray explains the specifics of whom and what types of securities are covered, as well as the sanctions for failure to comply.