Almeida Capital is pleased to be a premier sponsor of AltAssets
AltAssets HomeAlmeida Capital websiteAlmeida Capital

 

Click here for printer friendly page

SEC proposes amendments to tender offer best-price rule

21/06/2006Source: Dechert.  

Click here for the latest news, views and interviews in the clean energy investor communityThe proposed amendment has been prompted by the existing split among federal courts on how the rule should be applied to compensatory arrangements entered into with employee and director shareholders of target companies, says Dechert’s mergers and acquisitions group.

At its open meeting, the Securities and Exchange Commission voted to issue proposed rules to amend the tender offer "best-price" rule. The proposed amendment has been prompted by the existing split among federal courts on how the rule should be applied to compensatory arrangements entered into with employee and director shareholders of target companies.

Rule 14d-10 under the 1934 Act provides that no bidder may make a tender offer unless "the consideration paid to any security holder pursuant to the tender offer is the highest consideration paid to any other security holder during such tender offer." Although this rule appears to be simple in concept, courts have struggled when applying it to the variety of arrangements that exist or are entered into with executives of a target company (who are usually stockholders as well) in connection with an M&A transaction. These arrangements often include severance payments, stay bonuses, non-compete payments, and other cash and equity compensation arrangements designed to retain and provide incentive to key management.

The courts have applied different tests in analyzing these arrangements. For example, the Ninth Circuit has focused on whether these arrangements are "integral" to the tender offer transaction (e.g., are the arrangements conditioned upon completion of the deal). Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 50 F.3d 644 (9 th Cir. 1995). The Seventh Circuit has focused more on the timing of such arrangements (e.g., were they made "during such tender offer," and thereby prohibited by the rule). Lerro v. Quaker Oats Co., 84 F.3d 239 (7 th Cir. 1996).

Click here to view full report (109kb)

You need Adobe Acrobat to read this document. If you do not have it, you can download it free from www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html

Dechert is an international law firm with over 700 attorneys. It provides practical business solutions to a diverse client base. For more information please visit www.dechert.com

top of the page

  Advanced Search

HOME | ABOUT US | CONTRIBUTE | FAQ | ADVERTISING | RSS FEED | WEEKLY NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP | CONTACT US

All rights reserved. This document and its content are for your personal, non-commercial use only. No further copying, reproduction, distribution, transmission, display of AltAssets content is allowed. To obtain permission please contact editorial@altassets.com. You may not alter or remove the copyright or any other statements from copies of the content.

AltAssets Limited is registered in UK (04210936). Available online at www.AltAssets.net
Registered Office: Burleigh House, 357 Strand, London WC2R 0HS, United Kingdom. Legals & Terms of Use
Content is © AltAssets 2000-2008

Subscribe to our newsletter Subscribe to our newsletter