Download - In re Pure Brief
-
7/27/2019 In re Pure Brief
1/7
3/19/2014 7:23:00 AM
In re Pure:
Two possible legal standards to applyo Weinberger/Kahno Solomon/Pathe
Plaintiffs argument:o Since it is essentially the same as a negotiated merger with a
special committee it should be treated like Kahn
It should be judged with EF: prove that there was fairdealing and fair price
Tender offers are in fact coercive; no board negotiatingon the behalf of the minority; so theyre in a bad
position
Defendants argument:o It should be treated like any other insider tender offer under
the Solomon lenient standard
Looks at coercion, not in the way that Lynch does(inherent) but looks at it like the other tender
offer/defensive measure cases
o Coercion: Inherent: when there is concern that minority
stockholders would fear retribution from the 800 lb
gorilla if they dont go through the merger Mere existence of control shareholder constitutes
inherent coercion (whether or not there is a
threat, they just know it could happen)
Structural: when the control shareholder forces theminority to accept the deal and doesnt offer any real
choice of opting out
Situation like the one in the original Unocal (twotier front end loaded tender offer; if you reject the
initial offer you wind up with something worse on
the back end; so you are coerced into tendering)
Problem Strine focuses on in his analysis ofthe Solomon decision
o Why isnt there structural coercion here:
-
7/27/2019 In re Pure Brief
2/7
It is conditioned on all uninterested parties having achoice; so if there is a majority of that group, you have
to have this
THOMAS REASON: the font end of the offer is the sameas the back end of the offer; and Unocal hasguaranteed contractually that they will execute the back
end immediately after the front end
o Why isnt there inherent coercion: It is conditioned on the majority of the minority
provision; the provision is inadequate; that is the only
change that Strine makes
A choice to tender is the same as the choice tovote
It protects the minority shareholders because they willvote in their own best interest
Does this fully and completely address theconcern that they may be afraid of? No
It is the best of bad options; there is still anissue of getting the same positive action;
they only have appraisal rights, you cant
challenge the merger under a short form
merger because of Glassmano What is the key fact in this case/most all cases involving
public companies, that changes the way we analyze
everything
%age of institutional shareholders They should have research, and knowledge, and
shouldnt be able to be easily coerced
Subcategory of institutional investors with activistinvestors; they will actively oppose deals if they view
them as unfair in terms of what is being offered to the
shareholders
o Footnote 24 (pg 202 of supplement) Statement of intent is clear to expose it to potential
liability if it would obtain 90% and not constitute the
merger at the short term price
-
7/27/2019 In re Pure Brief
3/7
Disclosure:o Special committee is limited to just accepting/rejecting the
deal
o Allows the controlling shareholder to not hide anything fromthe minority
Key to the legitimacy of the vote; institutions matter,they are informed, and their votes are what makes a
difference, so we have to ensure that company
disclosures are accurate
Only problem: this then creates a big area for disputeover the companys disclosures
So what is the test (pg 201)o Control sh has to make full disclosure and engage in a
nonstructurally coercive offer
It must be subject to a nonwaivable majority of theminority
If it was waivable, after the tender offer wentthrough, they could just accept the new amt of
shares and complete the offer
Cant be dropped key to protection Prompt short form merger at the same price if it obtains
more than 90% of shares Controlling stockholder cannot make any retributive
threats
Role of special committees here:o We need them!!!
Federal disclosure obligation 14b9 (requires company tospeak about the offer; SOMEONE)
Probably not a good plan to have the conflictedboard speak
Someone has to do the basic leg work IB of committee has to do the fairness opinion They do a good job and arent as manipulated
here
Change that Strine requires the company to make in this trxn
-
7/27/2019 In re Pure Brief
4/7
o That the company change the language of the majority ofminority condition to get rid of any insiders; only
noninterested parties now; so that the CEO/COO (the largest
minority stockholders) unable to block the trxn
What is the payoff?o The control sh gets a completed tender offer short form
merger
You wont have these class actions and intense judicialreview which comes up during EF
o You get BJR Footnote 19 (pg 200)
o Lynch: how much risk there is in litigation for a company toactively choose this option
o If you have a special committee maybe applying the BJRinstead of just shifting burden in EF
o First signal that maybe we should change Kahn Gilson and Gordon (pg 203)
o Merge the Kahn and Pure doctrine into oneo Squeeze outs
Higher premiums under the strict standards is better PURE IS ACTUALLY THE WAY WE ANALYZE TENDER OFFERS NOW
o KNOW THIS TEST; KNOW IT WELLHF:
Over 100 HF that engage in shareholder activismo They have over 100 billion in equity capital to invest (5%,
multiple 100 billion by 20 2 trillion MV companies)
Activist HF: 3-5 stockso Large blocks that they holdo Not all are activists in each company, they may have buy and
hold investments in some companies
How do we find out what they holdo 13d
The only ongoing disclosure obligations at activist HFhave with respect to holdings
o This biases what we see publicly
-
7/27/2019 In re Pure Brief
5/7
5% threshold HFo Secondary disclosure scheme: Williams Act 13f
This is highly lagged Big battle over the exact requirements of 13d
o State the objective in holding the stock Pg 3 of the handout
Governance: exec pay too high, board structurenot independent enough
Pg 4: What is it that they do?o Communicate with mgmt.
Not harmless, usually a prelude to something moresignificant a plan for improvement and change
Unlike 14a8; they have a ton of money, and they wantto spend more to come up with a plan
-
7/27/2019 In re Pure Brief
6/7
3/19/2014 7:23:00 AM
-
7/27/2019 In re Pure Brief
7/7
3/19/2014 7:23:00 AM