A peek behind the scenes of investment banking
At any given time, a company can have several valuations, depending on the point of view of the buyer and the seller and their expectations of future profits and synergies. This variety sets the stage for negotiation but, needless to say, a transaction will take place only if common ground can be found – i.e. if the seller's minimum price does not exceed the buyer's maximum price.1
The art of negotiation consists of allocating the value of the anticipated synergies between the buyer and the seller, and in finding an equilibrium between their respective positions, so that both come away with a good deal. The seller receives more than the value for the company on a standalone basis because they pocket part of the value of the synergies the buyer hopes to unlock. Similarly, the buyer pays out part of the value of the synergies, but has still not paid more than the company is worth to them.
Transactions can also result from erroneous valuations. A seller might think the company has reached a peak, for example, and the buyer that it still has growth potential. But generally, out-and-out deception is rarer than you might think. It's usually only in hindsight that we say we made a killing and that the party on the other side of the transaction was totally wrong!
In this chapter we will focus on the acquisition of one company by another. We will not consider industrial alliances, i.e. commercial or technology agreements negotiated directly between two companies which do not involve a transaction of the equity of either of them. Before examining the various negotiation tactics and the purchase of a listed company, let us first take a look at the merger and acquisition phenomenon and the economic justification behind a merger.
Acquisitions can be paid for either in cash or in shares. Generally speaking, share transactions predominate when corporate valuations are high, as they were in 1999–2000, because absolute values do not have to be determined.
However, in less propitious times, payment in cash is highly appreciated, both by sellers, who delight in receiving hard cash which will not lose its value on the stock market, and by buyers, who are not keen to issue new shares at a price that to them would seem to be discounted. Between 2007 and 2013, cash was back in fashion!
As shown in the above graph, mergers and acquisitions tend to come in waves:
It seems to us that there are three main principles that explain the cyclical nature of mergers:
Putting the purely financial elements aside, the determinants of mergers and acquisitions can be macroeconomic, microeconomic or human factors, as we will now see.
There are several determining macroeconomic factors:
There are a number of different determining microeconomic factors:
Mergers and acquisitions, regardless of how tricky they are to manage, form part and parcel of a company's life and serve as a useful tool for growth.
Synergies are often overestimated; their cost and time to implement underestimated. For example, making information systems compatible or restructuring staff can be notoriously difficult.
Numerous research works have measured the value created by M&A deals and how this value is shared between shareholders of the buyer and of the target. They demonstrate that value is created for the target's shareholders because of the control premium paid. For the buyer's shareholders, the results are more mixed, even if they tend to show a recent improvement since the beginning of the 2000s, when it was widely assumed that two-thirds of mergers were failing. Excluding some resounding failures (acquisition of Alstom's energy division by GE or the Monsanto by Bayer), which heavily bias the results, M&A deals would appear value-creative because of some largely successful deals such as Sanofi/Genzyme, Office Depot-OfficeMax, Peugeot-Opel. Quality and speediness of the integration process are the key factors for successful M&A deals.
A negotiating strategy aims at achieving a price objective set in accordance with the financial value derived from our valuation work presented in Chapter 31. But price is not everything. The seller might also want to limit the guarantees they grant, retain managerial control, ensure that their employees' future is safe, etc.
Depending on the number of potential acquirers, the necessary degree of confidentiality, the timing and the seller's demands, there is a wide range of possible negotiating strategies. We present below the two extremes: private negotiation and auction. Academic researchers2 have established that none of these strategies is better than another. Our personal experience tells us the same thing: the context dictates the choice of a strategy.
The seller or their advisor contacts a small number of potential acquirers to gauge their interest. After signing a confidentiality agreement (or non-disclosure agreement, NDA), the potential acquirers might receive an information memorandum describing the company's industrial, financial and human resource elements. Discussions then begin. It is important that each potential acquirer believes they are not alone, even if in reality they are. In principle, this technique requires extreme confidentiality. Psychological rather than practical barriers to the transaction necessitate the high degree of confidentiality.
To preserve confidentiality, the seller often prefers to hire a specialist, most often an investment banker, to find potential acquirers and keep all discussions under wraps. Such specialists are usually paid a success fee that can be proportional to the size of the transaction. Strictly speaking, there are no typical negotiating procedures. Every transaction is different. The only absolute rule about negotiating strategies is that the negotiator must have a strategy.
The discussion focuses on:
As you might expect, price remains the essential question in the negotiating process. Everything that might have been said during the course of the negotiations falls away, leaving one all-important parameter: price. We now take a look at the various agreements and clauses that play a role in private negotiation.
When a framework for the negotiations has been defined, a memorandum of understanding is often signed to open the way to a transaction. A memorandum of understanding is a moral, not a legal, commitment. Often, once the MOU is signed, the management of the acquiring company presents it to its board of directors to obtain permission to pursue the negotiations.
The MOU is not useful when each party has made a firm commitment to negotiate. In this case, the negotiation of the MOU slows down the process rather than accelerating it.
The next step might be an agreement in principle, spelling out the terms and conditions of the sale. The commitments of each party are irrevocable, unless there are conditions precedent – such as approval of the regulatory authorities. The agreement in principle can take many forms.
In many cases, specific financial arrangements are needed to get over psychological, tax, legal or financial barriers. These arrangements do not change the value of the company.
Sometimes, for psychological reasons, the seller refuses to go below some purely symbolic value. If they draw a line in the sand at 200, for example, whereas the buyer does not want to pay more than 190, a schedule spreading out payments over time sometimes does the trick. The seller will receive 100 this year and 100 next year. This is 190.9 if discounted at 10%, but it is still 200 to their way of thinking. Recognise that we are out of the realm of finance here and into the confines of psychology, and that this arrangement fools only those who want to be fooled.
This type of financial arrangement is window-dressing to hide the real price. Often companies build elaborate structures in the early stages of negotiation, only to simplify them little by little as they get used to the idea of buying or selling the company. Far from being a magical solution, such sweeteners give each party time to gravitate towards the other. In these cases it is only a stage, albeit a necessary one.
The following techniques are part of the investment banker's stock in trade:
Earnout provisions are very common in transactions involving service companies (advertising agencies, M&A boutiques), where people are key assets. Deferral of part of the price will entice them to stay and facilitate the integration process, although it can create management problems during the earnout period.
In an auction, the company is offered for sale under a predetermined schedule to several potential buyers who are competing with each other. The objective is to choose the one offering the highest price. An auction is often private, but it can also be announced in the press or by a court decision.
Private auctions are run by an investment bank in the following manner. Once the decision is taken to sell the company, the seller often asks an audit firm to produce a vendor due diligence (VDD, also called a long form report) to provide a clear view of the weak points of the asset from legal, tax, accounting, environmental, strategic and regulatory points of view. The VDD will be communicated to buyers later on in the process. For the moment, a brief summary of the company is prepared (a “teaser”). It is sent, together with a NDA, to a large number of potentially interested companies and financial investors.
In the next stage (often called “Phase I”), once the potential buyers sign the non-disclosure agreement,4 they receive additional information, gathered in an information memorandum (“info memo”). Then they submit a non-binding offer indicating the price, its financing, any conditions precedent and eventually their intentions regarding the future strategy for the target company.
At that point of time (“Phase II”), a “short list” of up to half a dozen candidates at most is drawn up by the seller and their advisor on the basis of price, other sales conditions, and their confidence in the capability and willingness of the candidates to successfully conclude the sale. Selected buyers receive still more information and possibly a schedule of visits to the company's industrial sites and meetings with management. Often an electronic data room is set up, where all economic, financial, regulatory, environmental and legal information concerning the target company is available for perusal. Access to the data room is very restricted; for example, no copies can be made. At the end of this stage, potential investors submit binding offers.
At any time, the seller can decide to enter into exclusive negotiations for a few days or a few weeks. For a given period of time, the potential buyer is the only candidate. At the end of the exclusive period, the buyer must submit a binding offer (in excess of a certain figure) or withdraw from the negotiations. Exclusivity is usually granted on the basis of a pre-emptive offer, i.e. a financially attractive proposal.
Together with the binding offers, the seller will ask the bidder(s) to propose a markup (comments) to the disposal agreement (called the share purchase agreement, SPA)5 previously provided by the seller. The ultimate selection of the buyer depends, naturally, on the binding offer, but also on the buyer's comments on the share purchase.
The seller selecting an auction process to dispose of the company may believe that it will lead to a high price because buyers are in competition with each other. In addition, it makes it easier for the seller's representatives to prove that they did everything in their power to obtain the highest possible price for the company, be it:
Competition sometimes generates a price that is well in excess of expectations. Moreover, an auction is faster, because the seller, not the buyer, sets the pace.
However, the auction creates confidentiality problems. Many people have access to the basic data, and denying rumours of a transaction becomes difficult, so the process must move quickly. Also, as the technique is based on price only, it is exposed to some risks, such as several potential buyers teaming up with the intention of splitting the assets among them. Lastly, should the process fail, the company's credibility will suffer. The company must have an uncontested strategic value and be in sound financial condition. The worst result is that of an auction process which turns sour because financial results are not up to the estimations produced a few weeks before, leaving only one buyer who knows they are now the only buyer.
A well-processed auction can take three to five months between intention to sell and the closing. It is sometimes shorter when an investment fund sells on to another fund.
In the end, whatever negotiating method was used, the seller is left with a single potential buyer who can then impose certain conditions. Should the negotiations fall apart at this stage, it could spell trouble for the seller because they would have to go back to the other potential buyers, hat in hand. So the seller is in a position of weakness when it comes to finalising the negotiations. The principal remaining element is the representations and warranties provisions that are part of the share purchase agreement.
Representations and warranties (“reps & warranties”) are particularly important because they give confidence to the buyer that the profitability of the company has not been misrepresented. It is a way of securing the value of assets and liabilities of the target company as the contract does not provide a detailed valuation.
Representations and warranties are not intended to protect the buyer against an overvaluation of the company. They are intended to certify that all of the means of production are indeed under the company's control, that the financial statements have been drawn up in accordance with accounting principles and that there are no hidden liabilities.
Well-worded representations and warranties clauses should guarantee to the buyer:
They also facilitate the sharing of known risks within the company at the time of the sale (disputes, defaulting customers) between buyer and seller.
The representations and warranties clause is generally divided into two parts.
In the first part (representations), the seller makes commitments related to the substance of the company that is to be sold.
The seller generally represents that the target company and its subsidiaries are properly registered, that all the fixed assets on the balance sheet, including brands and patents, or used by the company in the ordinary course of business, actually exist. As such, representations and warranties do not guarantee the book value of the fixed assets, but their existence.
The seller represents that inventories have been booked correctly, and that depreciation and provisions have been calculated according to GAAP.6 The seller declares that the company is up to date in tax payments, salaries and other accruals and that there are no prejudicial contracts with suppliers, customers or employees. All elements already communicated to the buyer, in particular exceptional items such as special contracts, guarantees, etc., are annexed to the clause and excluded from it because the buyer is already aware of them.
Lastly, the seller represents that during the transitional period between the last statement date and the sale date the company was managed in a prudent manner. In particular, the seller certifies that no dividends were distributed or assets sold, except for those agreed with the buyer during the period, that no investments in excess of a certain amount were undertaken, nor contracts altered, etc.
This is known as the locked-box system, where the price is definitively set on the basis of the latest financial statements provided by the seller and reviewed by the buyer. Otherwise, the company's accounts will have to be closed at the time of sale and price adjustments will have to be made if the equity (or, to simplify the process, the net debt and working capital) recorded is different from that guaranteed by the seller.
In the second part of the clause (warranties), the selleragrees to cover any additional liabilities that were not disclosed to the buyer (which the buyer was unable to factor in when setting the price), that occurred prior to the sale and come to light after the sale, and to do so for a given period (usually three years). Thresholds and a predetermined cap are set. In some cases, it is possible to set off such liabilities against provisions which then fall away or against income from assets sold at a higher price than expected. Warranties are often accompanied by a holdback (part of the purchase price is put in an escrow account)7 or a bank guarantee.
The representations and warranties clauses are the main addition to the sale agreement but, depending on the agreement, there may be many other additions, so long as they are legally valid – i.e. not contrary to company law, tax law or stock market regulations requiring equal treatment of all shareholders. A non-exhaustive list would include:
Of course, the parties to the contracts should also call upon legal experts to ensure that each clause is legally enforceable.
The final step is the actual consummation of the deal. It often takes place at a later date, because certain conditions must be met first: accounting, legal or tax audit, restructuring, approval of domestic or foreign competition commissioners, etc.
Sometimes a link-up is not allowed for competition (anti-trust) reasons (Sainbury's–Asda merger in the UK, Alstom–Siemens in Europe) or control of foreign investments on companies considered as strategic (Carrefour–Alimentation Couche Tard, Broadcom–Qualcomm). Accordingly, these concerns must be anticipated very early on in the merger process and the parties must be assisted by specialised lawyers.
In Europe, the thresholds are €5bn for the combined sales of the parties and €250m for sales made on a combined basis in Europe by at least two parties. An exception exists when all companies concerned generate more than two thirds of their gross revenue within the EU, and within the same single country (the two-thirds rule).
Finally, in the USA, the Hart–Scott–Rodino law allows for notification to be waived if the value of the target is less than $92m. Many types of transactions are, nonetheless, exempted; for example, deals worth less than $368m between companies with sales of less than $184m, target's sales of less than $18.4m, etc.
In order to improve its negotiation position or because the likely outcome of the sale process is unclear, the seller may decide to pursue a dual-track process: it will launch a sale process and the preparation of an IPO in parallel. At the latest possible moment, it will choose to sell to the one offering the best price, be it the stock market or a buyer. This is why in 2018, Delachaux cancelled its IPO and replaced an investment fund (CVC) with a Canadian investor (CDPQ).
The first idea that comes to mind when buying or taking a significant stake in a listed company would be to pick up shares on the stock market until you are strong enough to negotiate with the other shareholders and the management team. This solution seems attractive since it would allow you to take control without having to buy all the securities. This is why the law and the stock exchange authorities have imposed certain constraints on the purchase of securities on the stock exchange.
First of all, there is an obligation to declare the crossing of thresholds: when a shareholder exceeds a certain percentage of the capital or voting rights of a listed company, a disclosure obligation is imposed on them. Then there is an obligation to launch a public offer on all outstanding shares when certain thresholds are crossed.
These principles governing takeovers of listed companies are found in most countries with various degrees of constraint from one country to another.
To succeed in acquiring a listed company, the first step can be to start building a block in the company. This is how Vivendi acquired 30% of Gameloft before launching a full offer on the rest of the shares.
There are three methods available to investors seeking to accumulate shares:
The following conditions must be met for an acquisition of an attractive percentage at a reasonable price:
In order to prevent the acquirer from taking control of a company in that way, most market regulations require investors in a listed company to publicly declare when they pass certain thresholds in the capital of a company. If the acquirer fails to declare these shares, voting rights are lost.
The first threshold is most often 3% (UK, Switzerland, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc.).
Regulatory disclosure requirements allow minority shareholders to monitor stake-building and prevent an acquirer from getting control of a company little by little. These requirements are also helpful for the management to monitor the shareholder structure of the company. By-laws can set additional thresholds to be declared (generally lower thresholds than required by law).
Regulatory threshold disclosure requirements are the following:
China | 5% and multiples of 5% above |
France | 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 33.3%, 50%, 66.6%, 90%, 95% |
Germany | 3%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 50%, 75% |
India | 5%, then 2% till 25%, then any share above 25% |
Italy | 3%, 5%, multiples of 5% above up to 30%, then 50%, 66.6%,90%, |
Netherlands | 3%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 75%, 95% |
Spain | 3%, 5%, multiples of 5% thereafter, then 50%, 60%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 90% |
Switzerland | 3%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 33.3%, 50%, 66.6% |
UK | 3% and multiples of 1% above |
US | 5% and multiples of 1% above |
It is very unusual for an acquirer to gain control of a public company without launching a public offer on the target. Such offers are made to all shareholders over a certain period of time (2–10 weeks depending on the country). Public offers can be split between:
The table below summarises the criteria relevant for assessing whether a bidder wants to propose shares or cash in a public offer:
Payment in cash | Payment in shares | Comments | |
---|---|---|---|
Allocation of synergies | Target company's shareholders benefit from synergies only via the premium they receive | Target company's shareholders participate in future synergies | In a friendly share exchange offer, the premium might be minimal if the expected synergies are high |
Psychological effects | Cash lends credibility to the bid and increases its psychological value | Payment in shares has a “friendly” character | |
Purchaser's financial structure | Increases gearing | Does not increase gearing | The size of the deal sometimes requires payment in shares |
Shareholder structure | No impact unless the deal is subsequently refinanced through a share issue | Shareholders of the target become shareholders of the enlarged group | Sometimes, shareholders of the target get control of the new group in a share-for-share offer |
Impact on purchaser's share price | After the impact of the announcement, no direct link between the purchaser's and target's share price | Immediate link between purchaser's and target's share price, maintained throughout the bid period | A share exchange offer gains credibility when the two companies' share prices align with the announced exchange ratio |
Signal from buyer's point of view | Positive: buyer's stock is undervalued. Debt financing: positive signal | Negative: buyer's stock is overvalued | If the size of the target only makes possible a share-for-share deal, no signal |
Accounting effects | Increases EPS and its growth rate if the inverse of the target's P/E ratio including any premium is greater than the after-tax cost of debt of the acquirer | Increases EPS if the purchaser's P/E ratio is higher than the target's, premium included | EPS is not a relevant indicator of value creation, see Chapter 27 |
Purchaser's tax situation | Interest expense deductible | No impact, except capital gain if treasury shares are used | Taxation is not a determining factor |
Seller's tax situation | Taxable gain | Gain on sale can be carried forward | |
Index weighting | No change | Higher weighting in index (greater market capitalisation) | In the case of a share exchange, possible re-rating owing to size effect |
In practice, the choice is not so black and white. The purchaser can offer a combination of cash and shares (mixed offers), cash as an alternative to shares, or launch a “mix and match” offer, as we will see.
The success or failure of an offer can depend largely on the attitude of the target's management and the board of directors towards the offer.
To maximise the chances of success, the terms of an offer are generally negotiated with the management prior to the announcement, and then recommended by the board of the company. The offer is then qualified as friendly or recommended.
In some cases, the management of the target is not aware of the launch of an offer; it is then called an unsolicited offer. Facing this sudden event, the board has to convene and decide whether the offer is acceptable or not. If the board rejects the offer, it becomes hostile. This does not mean that the offer will not succeed, but just that the bidder will have to fight management and the current board of directors during the offer period to convince shareholders.
Most unsolicited offers end up as recommended offers, but only after the bidder has sweetened the offer in one way or another (generally by offering a higher price).
Around 15% of offers are deemed hostile and large groups such as Pfizer, Sanofi, Diageo, Enel, etc. were created through unsolicited offers.
The concept of the mandatory offer does not exist in every country. Nevertheless, in most countries, when a buyer passes a certain threshold or acquires the control of the target, they are required by stock exchange regulation to offer to buy back all the shareholders' shares. It is one of the founding rules of stock exchange regulations. It should be noted that in the US, there is no mandatory offer and an acquirer can theoretically buy a majority of the capital of a listed company without having to launch an offer to the minority shareholders.
Generally, the constraints for a mandatory offer are tighter than for a voluntary offer. For example, in the UK the mandatory offer will be in cash, or at least a cash alternative will be provided. Obviously, the conditions of the offer that the acquirer is allowed to set in a mandatory offer are limited because they are defined by the regulations.
It would be very disruptive for the market if an acquirer were to launch an offer and withdraw it a few days later. All market regulations try to ensure that when a public offer is launched, shareholders are actually given the opportunity to tender their shares.
Therefore, market regulation requires that a cash offer is fully funded when it is launched. Full funding ensures that the market does not run the risk of a buyer falling short of financing when the offer is a success! This funding usually takes the form of a guarantee by a bank (generally the bank presenting the offer commits that if the acquirer does not have the funds the bank will pay for the shares).
Another principle is that offers should be unconditional. In particular, the bidder cannot set conditions to the execution of the offer that remains in their hands (as an example, an offer cannot be conditional upon board approval of the acquirer). Nevertheless, in most countries, the offer can be subject to a minimum acceptance (which generally cannot be too high) and regulatory approval (including antitrust). In a few countries (the UK, the Netherlands, the US), the offer can be subject to a material adverse change (MAC) clause, which can only be invoked in extreme cases.8
The main role of market authorities is to guarantee the equal treatment of all shareholders and the transparency of the process.
In that regard, market authorities will have a key role in public offers:
In theory, a company whose shares are being secretly bought up on the stock market generally has a greater variety and number of defensive measures available to it than a company that is the target of a takeover bid. The reason behind this disparity is the secrecy surrounding shares bought up on the market compared with rules of equality and transparency applied to takeover bids.
If a company becomes aware that its shares are being bought up on the market, it is entitled to invoke all of the means of shareholder control described in Chapter 41. It can also get “friendly” investors to buy up its shares in order to increase the percentage of shares held by “friends” and push up its share price, thus making it more expensive for the hostile party to buy as many shares as it needs. Of course, the company will also need to have the time required to carry out all of these transactions, which generally involve waiting periods.
In the case of a takeover bid, there are fewer defensive measures available and they also depend on regulations in force in each country. In some countries (the UK and the Netherlands), all defensive measures taken during a takeover period (excluding attempts to identify other bidders) must be ratified by an EGM held during the offer period. Proxies granted by the general meeting of shareholders to the board prior to the offer period may be suspended. In some countries, any decision taken by the corporate and management bodies before the offer period that has not been fully or partially implemented, which does not fall within the normal course of business and which is likely to cause the offer to fail, must be approved or confirmed by the general meeting of the target's shareholders.
Furthermore, in some countries, as soon as the takeover bid has been launched, the parties involved are required to ensure that the interests of the target's employees are taken into account, to ensure that all shareholders are treated equally and that no upheaval on the stock markets is caused, to act in good faith and to comply with all regulations governing takeover bids.
The target company can either defend itself by embarking on an information campaign, explaining to shareholders and to the media how it will be able to create greater value in the future than the premium being offered by the predator, or it can use more active defensive measures, such as:
Just how far a board of directors is prepared to go to sabotage a takeover bid is determined by each board facing a predator. It could be depriving its shareholders of a potential capital gain and shareholders may question the responsibility of directors.
A competing takeover bid must be filed a few days before the close of the initial bid. The price offered should be at least a few percentage points higher than the initial bid. There is always the possibility that the initial bidder will make a higher bid, so there is no guarantee that the competing offer will succeed. Likewise, the “white knight” can sometimes turn grey or black when the rescue offer actually succeeds. We saw this in 2019 when Thales came to the “rescue” of Gemalto which was “under attack” by Atos.
A share purchase or exchange offer by the target on the hostile bidder, known as a Pac-Man defence, is only possible if the hostile bidder itself is listed and if its shares are widely held. In such cases, industrial projects are not that different given that an offer by X on Y results in the same economic whole as an offer by Y on X. This marks the start of a communications war (advertisements, press releases, meetings with investors), with each camp explaining why it would be better placed to manage the new whole than the other.
The buying up of shares by “friends” is often highly regulated and generally has to be declared to the market authority, which monitors any acting in concert or which may force the “friend” to file a counter-offer!
A capital increase or the issue of marketable securities is often only possible if this has been authorised by the general meeting of shareholders prior to the takeover bid, because generally there won't be enough time to convene an EGM to fit in with the offer timetable. In any event, a reserved issue is often not allowed.
Warrants, described in Chapter 41, are a strong dissuasive element. The negative consequences of warrants being issued for the company launching a hostile takeover bid mean that it is generally prepared to negotiate with the target – neutralisation of the warrants in exchange for a higher offer price.
US experience has shown that “poison pill” warrants strengthen the negotiating position of the target's management, although they don't ensure its independence. If warrants are, in fact, issued, then the matter of director responsibility will be raised, since the directors will effectively have caused shareholders to lose out on an opportunity to get a higher price for their shares.
The transfer of an important asset into a special structure to prevent its disposal. This is the method used by Suez to try to fend off the Veolia bid.
Legal action could be taken to ensure that market regulations are complied with or on the basis of misleading information if the prospectus issued by the hostile bidder appears to criticise the target's management. There is also the possibility of reporting the hostile bidder for abuse of a dominant position or insider trading if unusual trades are made before the offer is launched, for failing to comply with the principle of equality of shareholders or for failing to protect the interests of employees if the target has made risky acquisitions during the offer period. The real aim of any legal proceedings is to gain time for the target's management given that, in general, it takes a few months or quarters for the courts to issue rulings on the facts of a case.
The various anti-takeover measures generally force the bidder to sweeten their offer, but rarely to abandon it. What can happen is that an initially hostile bid can turn into a friendly merger (SABMiller/AB Inbev, Veolia-Suez). Whether a hostile offer is successful or a white knight comes to the rescue, events invariably lead to the loss of the target company's independence.
Which, then, are the most effective defensive measures? In recent bids involving large companies, those that have taken the initiative far upstream have been at a clear advantage. A good defence involves ensuring that the company is always in a position to seize opportunities, to anticipate danger and to operate from a position of strength so as to be able to counterattack if need be.
The EU directive on public offers lays down the principle that a shareholder who has assumed effective control over a company must bid for all equity-linked securities. It is up to individual countries to set a threshold of voting rights that constitutes effective control.
The directive states very specifically the floor price of a mandatory bid: the highest price paid by the new controlling shareholder in the 6–12 months prior to the bid (the exact period is set by national regulations). A mandatory bid can be in either cash or shares (if the shares are listed and are liquid).
So far as defence tactics are concerned, the European directive left European states free to:
Multiple voting rights and/or restrictions on voting rights disappear as of the first general shareholders' meeting after a bid that has given a bidder a qualified majority of the company. This does not apply to golden shares that have been deemed compatible with European law.9
The table below summarises the principal rules applicable to takeover bids in some countries:
Country | Regulator | Threshold for mandatory bid | Minimum percentage mandatory bid must encompass | Bid conditions allowed? | Bid validity after approval | Squeeze-out10 possible? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
China | China Securities Regulatory Commission (www.csrc.gov.cn) | 30% | 5% | 30-60 days | No. Minority shareholders have the right to sell to the buyer after an offer giving them at least 75% of shares, at the offer price | |
France | AMF, Autorité des Marchés Financiers (www.amf-france.org) | 30% of shares or voting rights, 1% p.a. between 30% and 50% of shares or voting rights | 100% of shares and equity-linked securities | Usual suspects.12 None if bid mandatory | 25–35 trading days | Yes, if >90% of voting rights and shares |
Germany | BAFin, Bundesanstalt für Finanzdien-stle-istungsauf-sicht (www.bafin.de) | 30% of voting rights | 100% | Usual supects.12 None if mandatory bid | 4–10 weeks | Yes, if >95% of shares |
India | Securities and Exchange Board of India (www.sebi.gov.in) | 25% of shares or voting rights, 5% p.a. beyond, acquisition of control | 26% at least | Minimum acceptance | 20 days | Yes, if the higher of 90% of shares or stake of the controlling shareholder + 50% of the float is reached |
Italy | CONSOB, Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (www.consob.it) | 25% or 30% of shares, 5% p.a. beyond 30% up to 50% | 100% of voting shares | Usual suspects12 | 15–40 trading days | Yes, if >95% of voting rights |
Netherlands | AFM, Autoriteit Financiele Markten (www.afm.nl) | 30% of voting rights | 100% of shares and equity-linked securities | Minimum acceptance | >8 trading weeks and <10 weeks | Yes, if >95% of shares |
Spain | CNMV, Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (www.cnmv.es) | 30% and 50% or less if right to nominate more than half of the directors or any increase of 5% between 30% and 50% | 100% | Usual suspects12 | 3–14 weeks | Yes, if >90% of the voting rights and higher than 90% success rate for the public offer |
Switzerland | COPA, Commission des Offres Publiques d'Achat (www.takeover.ch) | 33.33% of voting rights11 | 100% of shares | Usual suspects12 | 20–40 trading days | Yes, if >90% of voting rights |
UK | Takeover Panel (www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk) | 30% of voting rights and any increase between 30% and 50% | 100% of shares and all instruments convertible or exchangeable into shares | Usual suspects12 and MAC clause that must be approved by regulator | 21–60 trading days | Yes, if >90% of the shares13 |
USA | SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission (www.sec.gov) | None, except Maine (20%), Pennsylvania (25%) and South Dakota (50%) | None | Usual suspects12 and MAC clause | >20 trading days | Yes with normal or super-majority |
10 That is, possibility for the majority shareholder to force the buy-back of minority shareholders and delist the company if minority shareholders represent only a small part of the capital.
11 No threshold (opt-out) or a threshold up to 49% if the by-laws of the target company permit.
12 Minimum acceptance, antitrust authorisations, authorisation of shareholders to issue shares.
13 The Scheme of Arrangement allows for 75% to agree to an acquisition for it to go through.