Tag: M&A

EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation Enters Into Force In 2023

On December 23, 2022, Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 of December 14, 2022 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market (FSR) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The FSR introduces a new regulatory hurdle for M&A transactions in the European Union (EU), in addition to merger control and foreign direct investment screening. The FSR’s impact cannot be overstated as it introduces two mandatory pre-closing filing regimes and it gives the Commission wide-reaching ex officio investigative and intervention powers. Soon, the Commission will also launch a public consultation on a draft implementing regulation that should further detail and clarify a number of concepts and requirements of the FSR.

The bulk of the FSR will apply as of July 12, 2023. Importantly, the notification requirements for M&A transactions and public procurement procedures will apply as of October 12, 2023.

We highlight the key principles of the FSR below and provide guidance to start preparing for the application of the FSR. We refer to our On The Subject article ‘EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation to Impact EU and Cross-Border M&A Antitrust Review Starting in 2023’ of August 2, 2022 for a more detailed discussion of the then draft FSR. We also refer to our December 8, 2022 webinar on the FSR. Given the importance of the FSR, we will continue to report any future developments.

IN DEPTH

FSR in a Nutshell

The FSR tackles ‘foreign subsidies’ granted by non-EU governments to companies active in the EU and which ‘distort the internal market’.

  • First, a ‘foreign subsidy’ will be considered to exist where a direct or indirect financial contribution from a non-EU country or an entity whose actions can be attributed to a non-EU country (public entities or private entities) confers a benefit on an undertaking engaging in an economic activity in the EU internal market, and where that benefit is not generally available under normal market conditions but is, instead, limited, in law or in fact, to assisting one or more undertakings or industries. A ‘financial contribution’ covers a broad spectrum and encompasses, amongst others, positive benefits such as the transfer of funds or liabilities, the foregoing of revenue otherwise due (e.g., tax breaks, the grant of exclusive rights below market conditions, or the provision or purchase of goods or services).

  • Second, a ‘distortion in the internal market’ will be considered to exist in case of a foreign subsidy which is liable to improve the competitive position of an undertaking and which actually or potentially negatively affects competition in the EU internal market. The Regulation provides some guidance on when a foreign subsidy typically would not be a cause for concern:
    – A subsidy that does not exceed EUR 200,000 per third country over any consecutive period of three years is considered de minimis and therefore not distortive;
    – A foreign subsidy that does not exceed EUR 4 million per undertaking over any consecutive period of three years is unlikely to cause distortions; and
    – A foreign subsidy aimed at making good/recovering from the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences may be considered not to be distortive.

The FSR looks at ‘undertakings’, as is the case for merger control. Therefore, the Commission will not look merely at the legal entity concerned, but at the entire corporate group to which the entity belongs in order to calculate the total amount of foreign financial contributions granted to the undertaking. Even companies headquartered in the EU that have entities outside of the EU that have received foreign financial contributions are covered by the FSR.

The FSR introduces three tools for the European Commission (Commission): (i) a notification requirement for certain M&A transactions, (ii) a notification requirement for certain public procurement procedures (PPP) and (iii) investigations on a case by case basis.

Notification Requirement for Certain M&A Transactions

M&A transactions (or “concentrations”) involving a buyer and/or a target that has received a foreign financial contribution shall be notifiable if they meet the following cumulative conditions:

  • At least one of the merging undertakings, the acquired undertaking (target, not buyer) or the joint venture is established in the EU and has an EU turnover of at least EUR 500 million, AND

  • The combined aggregate financial contributions provided to the undertakings concerned in the three financial years (combined) prior to notification amounts to more than EUR 50 million.

M&A transactions that meet these criteria will need to be notified and approved by the Commission prior to implementation. During its review, the Commission will determine whether the foreign financial contributions received constitute foreign subsidies in the sense of the FSR and whether these foreign subsidies actually or potentially distort or negatively affect competition in the EU internal market. The Commission likely will consider certain indicators including the amount and nature of the foreign subsidy, the purpose and conditions attached to the foreign subsidy as well as its use in the EU internal market. For example, in a case of an acquisition, if a foreign subsidy covers a substantial part of the purchase price of the target, the Commission may consider it likely to be distortive.

Notification Requirement for Certain Public Procurement Procedures

A notifiable foreign financial contribution in the context of PPP shall be deemed to arise where the following cumulative conditions are met:

  • The estimated value of the public procurement or framework agreement net of VAT amounts to at least EUR 250 million, AND

  • The economic operator was granted aggregate foreign financial contributions in the three financial years prior to notification of at least EUR 4 million from a non-EU country.

Where the procurement is divided into lots, the value of the lot or the aggregate value of all lots for which the undertaking bids for must, in addition to the two criteria set out above, also amount to at least EUR 125 million.

Through this procedure, the Commission will ensure that companies that have received non-EU country subsidies do not submit unduly advantageous bids in public procurement procedures.

During the Commission’s review, all procedural steps may continue except for the award of the contract.

Even if the thresholds are not met, the Regulation requires undertakings to provide to the contracting authority in a declaration attached to the tender a list of all foreign financial contributions received in the last three financial years and to confirm that these are not notifiable, which the contracting authority will subsequently send to the Commission.

Investigations on a Case-by-case Basis

The Commission may on its own initiative investigate potentially distortive foreign subsidies (e.g. following a complaint). These investigations are not limited to M&A transactions or PPP. However, on the basis of this power, the Commission may investigate M&A transactions and awarded contracts under PPP which do not fall within the scope of the notification requirements set out above.

If the Commission carries out an ex-officio review, its analysis will be structured in two phases: a preliminary examination and an in-depth investigation. Although these phases have no time limits, the Commission will endeavor to take a decision within 18 months of the start of the in-depth investigation.

HOW TO PREPARE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE FSR

Application of the FSR – Timetable

As mentioned above, the FSR will apply as of July 12, 2023. The FSR shall apply to foreign subsidies granted in the five years prior to July 12, 2023 where such foreign subsidies create effects at present, i.e., they distort the internal market after July 12, 2023. By way of derogation, the FSR shall apply to foreign financial contributions granted in the 3 years prior to July 12, 2023 where such foreign financial contributions were granted to an undertaking notifying a concentration or notifying a PPP pursuant to the FSR.

The FSR shall not apply to concentrations for which the agreement was signed before July 12, 2023. The FSR shall also not apply to public procurement contracts that have been awarded or procedures initiated before July 12, 2023.

In general, the FSR shall apply from July 12, 2023 while the notification obligations for M&A transactions and PPP shall only apply from October 12, 2023. However, it is advisable to start preparing immediately for the application of the FSR, given the substantial scope of the regulation.

Actions to Take Now

Businesses which conduct activities in the EU, should put in place a system to monitor and quantify foreign financial contributions received since at least July 2020 – to cover the three-year review – and, preferably, July 2018. In particular, attention should be paid to positive benefits and reliefs from certain costs normally due by the company. External counsel can assist in determining whether these foreign financial contributions constitute a ‘foreign subsidy’.

As soon as a company decides to engage in an M&A or PPP in the EU, the company should map all relevant foreign financial contributions for the relevant time period to check whether the relevant notification thresholds are met. Subsequently companies must carefully consider whether any such financial contribution constitutes a foreign subsidy and, if so, whether such foreign subsidy may have a distortive effect. It is also advisable to determine whether there any positive effects relating to the subsidy that could be invoked. Companies should ensure that the preparation above is ably assisted by external counsel.

In particular with regard to M&A transactions, companies should carry out an FSR analysis in addition to merger control and foreign direct investment reviews. Even at the stage of due diligence, it would already be advisable to check whether the target has received any foreign financial contributions. If the transaction might eventually trigger a notification to the Commission, the M&A agreement should provide for Commission approval in the closing conditions. When acting as a bidder for a target that meets the EU turnover threshold, your bid will be much better viewed when accompanied with clear assurances that no FSR filing is required or, alternatively, that a filing may be required but that the foreign subsidies received are not distortive of competition.

© 2023 McDermott Will & Emery
For more Antitrust Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

With Retail Bankruptcies on the Rise, Opportunities for Distressed M&A Increase

While there were already a number of high profile retail bankruptcies in 2019, current economic conditions and pandemic-related market challenges have exacerbated an already difficult retail environment, which has led to a significant increase in bankruptcies in 2020. Year to date, more than 30 major retail and restaurant chains have filed for bankruptcy, which is more than in all of 2019. Furthermore, 2020 is on track to have the highest number of retail bankruptcies in 10 years. Although the Q4 holiday season often provides the strongest quarterly financial performance for many retailers, which may slow the pace of bankruptcy filings, projected holiday sales numbers may be uncertain this year, and additional bankruptcies are still likely to follow by year end.

Despite these bleak statistics, distressed companies may present attractive targets for strategic and private equity buyers with available cash or access to financing on favorable terms. Distressed M&A transactions may offer certain advantages that can be attractive to buyers, such as the potential to purchase at a discounted price or the ability to complete a transaction on an accelerated timetable. Already, the retail market has begun to see the reemergence under new ownership of some shuttered companies that were the targets of liquidation sales and distressed M&A transactions within the past two years. Some of these retailers have relaunched with modified business strategies, such as a significantly reduced number of brick and mortar locations or an exclusively online presence. The distressed M&A transaction opportunities resulting from existing market conditions will likely play an increasingly important role in overall M&A deal activity and could lead to a reshaping of the retail landscape in the near future.

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles on bankruptcy, visit the National Law Review Bankruptcy & Restructuring section.

Is a Pandemic a Material Adverse Event or Change in M&A?

Question already casting clouds over corporate deals.

Reuters has reported that Gray Television Inc. has withdrawn its $8.5 billion offer to buy Tegna Inc. due to the potential impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on regional TV stations like those operated by Tegna. The news agency also reported that Volkswagen’s CFO cited the “curveball” the outbreak has thrown at its liquidity in stating that, while the automaker remains interested in buying U.S. truck-maker Navistar, it must first “conserve cash as it shuts down plants and throttles back production.” The New York Times, meanwhile, has reported that Japan’s SoftBank is threatening to withdraw an offer to purchase as much as $3 billion of WeWork stock due to government investigations, but at a time when the outbreak has reduced the value of WeWork’s “shared office space” business model.

There is no question that the coronavirus pandemic – in addition to the devastating human toll – will deeply disrupt business. That includes mergers and acquisitions. For deals not yet consummated, the validity of withdrawing from a deal comes down to the “material adverse effects” or “material adverse conditions” clauses (MAE/MAC) in deal agreements.

Depending on the negotiated terms of an agreement, the MAE/MAC clause may pertain to a company’s financial condition, operations, properties, prospects, tangible or intangible assets, the ability to repay debt, capitalization, products, intellectual property, or liabilities.

The clause may have exceptions, excluding changes such as those:

• Resulting from actions one party takes at the direction or request of the other;
• Affecting the relevant industry, assuming the changes do not disproportionately affect the parties;
• Triggering the loss of value a company may suffer when the market, suppliers or employees learn of the deal;
• Impacting economic, market or political conditions, including those arising out of war, terrorism or, in this case, a pandemic.

These clauses vary as they are negotiated by the parties. So close examination of the clause is required to determine if pulling out of a deal is a viable option. Buyers will want to see if pandemics are included or specifically excluded.

Merging companies will also want to anticipate the slowing down of necessary approvals and antitrust reviews. For example, the DOJ Antitrust Division announced that for pending mergers or those that may be proposed, it may take an additional 30 days to complete its review of transactions after parties comply with document requests.

What’s the impact on “long-term earnings power over a commercially reasonable period”?

One of the leading cases cited in answering questions surrounding MAE/MACs outside of the pandemic context is the Delaware Chancery Court’s 2018 decision in Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG (2018 Del. Ch. LEXIS 325). A healthcare company terminated a merger with a drug company, because the drug company, as a whistleblower revealed, misrepresented that it was compliant with important government regulations. The drug company tried to enforce the merger agreement, but the court found the misrepresentations had a material adverse effect on the company’s value. The healthcare company’s termination of the deal was valid, the court found. It went on to discuss the high bar set for determining the existence of a MAE/MAC.

“The ‘reasonably be expected to’ standard used in merger agreements to evaluate the deviation between a target business’s as-represented condition and its actual condition is an objective one,” the court held. “When this phrase is used, future occurrences qualify as material adverse effects (MAE). As a result, an MAE can have occurred without the effect on the target’s business being felt yet. Even under this standard, a mere risk of an MAE cannot be enough.”

In the case of a merger, the court said, whether a material adverse change occurred depends on “the long-term impact of the event,” which the court said required a “somewhat speculative analysis.” “The ‘would reasonably be expected’ formulation is best thought of as meaning likely to happen, with likely, in turn, meaning a degree of probability greater than five on a scale of one to ten. In other words, it means more likely than not.” The court said the context of the transaction and the words of the agreement must be examined.

To kill a deal by invoking a MAE clause, the court said, buyers face a heavy burden. “A short-term hiccup in earnings should not suffice; rather the MAE should be material when viewed from the longer-term perspective of a reasonable acquiror. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a corporate acquirer may be assumed to be purchasing the target as part of a long-term strategy. The important consideration therefore is whether there has been an adverse change in the target’s business that is consequential to the company’s long-term earnings power over a commercially reasonable period, which one would expect to be measured in years rather than months.”

The Delaware court said judges must not rewrite contracts to appease a parties who suddenly believe they have agreed to a bad deal. Parties have a right to enter into good and bad contracts and the law enforces both, the court said. However, turning to the facts presented in Akorn, and given all that needed to be established, the court concluded that “any second thoughts” the healthcare company about purchasing the drug company were “justified by unexpected events” at the drug company.

A justifiable question.

A typical MAE/MAC provision addresses material adverse changes in a company generally. Also, as we have discussed, the clause may delineate specific types of events that constitute adverse changes and list exceptions that would preclude bidders from leaving a deal or seeking a renegotiation.

Surveys, like the Nixon Peabody MAC Survey 2015, have shown that the most common MAE/MAC element is a change in the financial condition of the business, however some of the most common exceptions include changes in the economy and acts of God. Understanding those elements and exceptions, which differ from deal to deal, are key to any determination or litigation over whether financial turmoil facing a business as a result of COVID-19 means that a MAC/MAE has occurred.

Whether a pandemic and its related business effects will constitute a MAE/MAC remains an open question and certainly one which will be repeatedly litigated. However, in light of the various government mandates surrounding the COVID-19 crisis, the dire predictions for the economy from both official sources and highly credible non-official sources, and the recent stock market downside volatility, parties that invoke MAE/MAC clauses at this time appear to have supportable justifications.

© MoginRubin LLP

ARTICLE WRITTEN BY Dan Mogin and Jennifer M. Oliver  & Edited by Tom Hagy of MoginRubin.

2016 Year In Review: Corporate Governance Litigation and Regulation

2016 year in review2016 saw many notable developments in corporate governance litigation and related regulatory developments.  In this article, we discuss significant judicial and regulatory developments in the following areas:

  • Mergers and Acquisitions (“M&A”): 2016 was a particularly significant year in M&A litigation.  In Delaware, courts issued important decisions that impose enhanced scrutiny on disclosure-only M&A settlements; confirm the application of the business judgment rule to mergers approved by a fully informed, disinterested, non-coerced shareholder vote; inform the proper composition of special litigation committees; define financial advisors’ liability for breaches of fiduciary duty by their clients; and offer additional guidance for calculating fair value in appraisal proceedings.

  • Controlling Shareholders: Delaware courts issued important decisions clarifying when a person with less than majority stock ownership qualifies as a controller, when a shareholder may bring a quasi-appraisal action in a controlling shareholder going-private merger, and when the business judgment rule applies to controlling shareholder transactions. In New York, the Court of Appeals followed Delaware’s guidance as to when the business judgment rule applies to a controlling shareholder squeeze-out merger.

  • Indemnification and Jurisdiction: Delaware courts issued decisions clarifying which employees qualify as officers for the purpose of indemnification and articulating an updated standard for exercising jurisdiction in Delaware over actions based on conduct undertaken by foreign corporations outside of the state.

  • Shareholder Activism and Proxy Access: Shareholder activists remained busy in 2016, including mounting successful campaigns to replace CEOs and board members at Chipotle and Hertz. Additionally, the SEC’s new interpretation of Rule 14a-8 has limited the ability of management to exclude a shareholder proposal from a proxy statement on the grounds that it conflicts with a management proposal.  Also, some companies have adopted “proxy rights” bylaws, which codify a shareholder’s right to directly nominate board members.

I.  M&A

A.Enhanced Scrutiny of Disclosure-Only Settlements

In January 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an important decision, In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,1 making clear the court’s renewed scrutiny of—and skepticism towards—so-called disclosure-only settlements of shareholder class actions. In Trulia, shareholders sought to block the merger of real estate websites Zillow and Trulia.  After litigation was commenced, the parties agreed to a settlement in which Trulia would make additional disclosures in proxy materials seeking shareholder approval of the transaction in exchange for a broad release of present and future claims by the class and fees for plaintiffs’ counsel.

Chancellor Bouchard rejected the proposed settlement and criticized disclosure-only settlements as generally unfair to shareholders.  Chancellor Bouchard noted that the Court of Chancery had previously expressed concerns regarding the incentives of plaintiff counsel to settle class action claims in which broad releases were granted in exchange “for a peppercorn and a fee”—i.e., for fees and immaterial disclosures that provided little benefit to shareholders.2  According to the Court, “these settlements rarely yield genuine benefits for stockholders and threaten the loss of potentially valuable claims that have not been investigated with vigor.”3

Continue reading at the National Law Review…

ARTICLE BY Nathan Bull, Alejandra Contreras, Jaclyn A. Hall, Jason M. Halper, Hyungjoo Han & Adam Magid of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
© Copyright 2017 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Cybersecurity Due Diligence Is Crucial in All M&A—Including Energy M&A Transactions

Can a single data breach kill or sideline a deal? Perhaps so. Last month Verizon signaled that Yahoo!’s disclosure of a 2014 cyberattack might be a “material” change to its July $4.83 billion takeover bid—which could lead Verizon to renegotiate or even drop the deal entirely. Concern over cybersecurity issues is not unique to technology or telecommunications combinations. In a 2016 NYSE Governance Services survey of public company directors and officers, only 26% of respondents would consider acquiring a company that recently suffered a high-profile data breach—while 85% of respondents claimed that it was “very” or “somewhat” likely that a major security vulnerability would affect a merger or acquisition under their watch (e.g., 52% said it would significantly lower valuation).

Bottom Line: Cybersecurity should play a more meaningful role in the due diligence portion of any potential M&A deal. Certainly this is so when a material portion of the value in the acquisition comes from intangible assets that might be most vulnerable to hackers. Financial information comes to mind. Personal information of employees does as well. But companies also need to be concerned about their trade secrets, know-how and other confidential business information whose value inheres in its secrecy. Therefore, a merely perfunctory approach to cybersecurity can become very costly. The union of companies today is a union of information, malware and all.

Energy M&A Is Not Immune

To weather the plunge in prices, many oil companies have sought out new innovations to reduce the cost of extraction and exploration. Investments in digital technologies will likely only increase—a 2015 Microsoft and Accenture survey of oil and gas industry professionals found that “Big Data” and the “Industrial Internet of Things” (IIoT) are targets for greater spend in the next three to five years. Cybersecurity threats were perceived in the survey as one of the top two barriers to realizing value from these technologies.

These developments in energy industry—bigger data and bigger vulnerabilities—are here to stay. The proposed merger of General Electric and Baker Hughes also speaks to the growing importance of analytics to oil production. Commentators note that the acquisition would allow GE more fully to implement its Predix platform, an application of IIoT to connect everything from wellhead sensors to spreadsheets. However, as last month’s massive cyberattack on DNS provider Dyn, Inc. demonstrated, the IIoT holds unique challenges as well as great promise for operational efficiency. (In this attack, reportedly 400,000 internet-linked gadgets were hacked and used to reroute web traffic to overload servers.)

Bottom Line: Robust cybersecurity diligence should be de rigueur for energy M&A.

What Can Companies Do to Protect Deal Value?

For starters, energy companies should treat cybersecurity as a separate and more involved category for due diligence.

Liability for or damages from legacy data breaches or malware can become expensive—damages to systems, theft of information and liability from the release of personal or reputation-damaging information, to name a few. Therefore, anticipating problems post-merger, cataloguing past vulnerabilities and most importantly, discovering actual breaches before closing is crucial to avoid deals blowing hot and cold.

Companies should retain IT specialists who can do an objective assessment of the cybersecurity posture of a proposed merger or acquisition. This can help prospective acquirers better determine the adequacy of a target’s cybersecurity programs, such as its policies over incident response, how access to data is distributed, the extent of a company’s online presence and vulnerabilities, and how remediation of any potential cyberthreats or actual breaches may best proceed.

A cybersecurity questionnaire should also be developed, covering such topics as:

  • How and where has company data been stored?

  • Who has had access?

  • Have there been any actual or attempted intrusions into (or leaks) of company data?

An acquirer could further insist on specific representations and warranties from a target company regarding their cybersecurity compliance, as well as bargain towards indemnity for prior data breaches.

On the target side, energy companies should prepare (in turn) for more scrutiny over their data security and privacy practices. Among other benefits to “knowing thyself,” getting ahead of this process should offer targeted companies a better negotiating position. It would also allow them to take a more proactive role in defining the policies of the combined company post-merger. At the very least, these efforts could help avoid the kind of hiccups and uncertainties that lead to undervaluation. In any event, poor cybersecurity practices can give an impression that a target lacks risk management in other areas—not an ideal pose to strike in any bargain.

Parting Thoughts

It is a trope in cybersecurity writing to invoke figures like Sun Tzu and shoehorn in quotes about war stratagem. Well, these habits are in some ways unavoidable: For all intents and purposes, fighting anonymous hackers resembles battle prep—a method of self-awareness and readiness that defies box-checking.

Energy companies could take these words to heart from the inestimable Miyamoto Musashi, a samurai who won 60 duels: “If you consciously try to thwart opponents, you are already late.” (A sentiment echoed more recently by Mike Tyson’s truistic “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”)

And This Key Takeaway: Any cybersecurity program must go hand-in-hand with a corporate culture that respects data as among its most valued assets. Efforts in detection, reporting and remediation are challenges that fall throughout the ranks and, if reflexive to the unknown, stand the best chance of being fully realized.

Bottom Line: Mind Your Data!

ARTICLE BY Jeff C. Dodd, Douglas W. Rommelmann & Ross Campbell of Andrews Kurth Kenyon
© 2016 Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP

Unclaimed Property in M&A Transactions: The Potential for an Unwelcome Surprise

GT Law

As the economy continues to recover, an increase in M&A activity is expected. A target company’s historical compliance with unclaimed property laws is an important, but often overlooked, area for due diligence in M&A transactions. A target company’s failure to comply with unclaimed property laws can potentially create multi-million dollar exposure for the buyer. The transaction itself may have the effect of drawing the attention of state unclaimed property regulators and third party contingency fee auditors. There are various ways, as discussed below, for the buyer to control or limit its potential exposure.

A Brief Introduction to Unclaimed Property

While the exact parameters of what constitutes “unclaimed property” vary from state to state, unclaimed property generally consists of a wide range of both tangible and intangible property held by a business. Once the business has held the property for a statutorily mandated holding period without communication with the owner, it becomes unclaimed property subject to escheat. Some examples of unclaimed property include: un-cashed rebate checks and other customer credits; unused gift certificates and gift cards; un-cashed vendor checks; un-cashed dividend checks; insurance proceeds; and the underlying stock or other evidence of an ownership interest in a business.

Businesses are responsible for reporting unclaimed property to the states on an annual basis in accordance with priority rules established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The first-priority rule is that unclaimed property escheats to the state of the apparent owner’s last known address, as shown on the company’s books and records. The second-priority rule provides that the unclaimed property escheats to the state of the company’s incorporation if: (1) the apparent owner’s address is unknown, (2) the last known address is in a foreign country, or (3) the last known address is in a state that does not provide for escheat of the property in question. As the unclaimed property laws vary from state to state, the outcome of this jurisdictional priority analysis can have a meaningful impact on the property required to be escheated. Some states even require negative reports to be filed, stating that no unclaimed property is due and owing to the state.

The Importance of the Transaction’s Structure

A transaction’s structure can significantly impact the unclaimed property exposure that a buyer may inherit from the target. In an asset purchase, the buyer acquires only those liabilities specifically identified in the purchase document. While it is still possible for the buyer to acquire certain unclaimed property liabilities in an asset purchase (such as those associated with bank accounts, accounts receivable, or gift cards), the buyer’s potential exposure for the target’s failure to comply with unclaimed property laws will typically be less than in a stock purchase where the buyer generally acquires all of the target’s disclosed and undisclosed liabilities, including its unclaimed property liabilities.

In addition, unclaimed property can arise in the context of a merger involving a share exchange, where the former stockholders (who now cannot be located) fail to receive the shares issuable to them in the merger. At least one SEC reporting company recently entered into a settlement with the State of Delaware as a result of more than four million shares which were reserved for issuance in the merger, but which were not claimed by former stockholders. The settlement resulted in the SEC reporting company making a $20,000,000 cash payment to the State of Delaware.

The Impact of a Target’s Failure to Comply with Unclaimed Property Laws

There are a number of factors that can make a target’s failure to comply with the unclaimed property laws very costly for a buyer. In many states, there is no statute of limitations on unclaimed property. As a result, even voluntary compliance arrangements with the states can result in a look-back period of five to ten years or even longer. Audit look-back periods can be significantly longer. Oftentimes, the buyer will not have complete records from the target. In such situations, state regulators in a post acquisition audit have been known to use various formula to estimate the liability. The target may have made acquisitions itself prior to being acquired, further compounding the potential for non-compliance. Once interest (and potentially even penalties) is added to the equation, a potential multi-million dollar exposure can be created — definitely an unwelcome surprise for the buyer.

Methods for Avoiding an Unwelcome Surprise

Prospective buyers can take proactive steps to manage and minimize potential exposure. Below are a few such steps:

Structure of Transaction. If possible, buyers should consider structuring a transaction as an asset purchase to minimize the unclaimed property liabilities inherited from the target. The purchase document should be carefully drafted and negotiated to leave any unclaimed property liabilities out of those liabilities acquired by the buyer.

Due Diligence. Oftentimes, unclaimed property compliance is overlooked in the due diligence process. As a starting point, buyers should request copies of the target’s unclaimed property policies and procedures, a description of the target’s unclaimed property due diligence process, copies of historical unclaimed property reports filed by the target, correspondence with state unclaimed property regulators, and any unclaimed property audit notifications. Given the current interest, especially in Delaware, in equity property (e.g., stock, dividends, etc.), buyers should make sure the target’s response includes materials that permit the buyer to determine the target’s compliance for this property type, especially because this information may be in possession of the target’s transfer agent or other third party. Depending on the materials provided, additional due diligence may be warranted.

Representations and Warranties. Unclaimed property is not a tax and thus is typically not covered by the tax representations and warranties. The purchase document should include specific representations and warranties of the target, backed by an indemnity and an escrow if possible, regarding the target’s historical unclaimed property compliance. The target’s indemnity obligations should be excluded from any basket and cap exceptions applicable to indemnities. Most representations and warranties only survive for a specified period following the closing of the transaction. However, as discussed above, oftentimes there is no statute of limitations with respect to unclaimed property compliance. If possible, the target’s representations and warranties regarding unclaimed property compliance should survive closing indefinitely. Additionally, even if the target is current in its compliance, provision should be made for property still in its dormancy period, i.e., property that may be abandoned but not yet subject to escheat.

Voluntary Compliance Initiatives. If it is determined that the target is not in compliance with the unclaimed property laws, the buyer should consider whether voluntary compliance is a viable option. Many states offer voluntary compliance programs with limited look-back periods.

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP