New York Private Equity Lawyer & Attorney : Geoffrey Parnass : Corporate & Business Law

Does Cerberus have the unilateral right to walk away from its deal with United Rental and limit its exposure to a break up fee of $100 million?  Or does United Rentals have the right to specifically enforce the merger agreement?  That's the issue at the heart of lawsuits currently pending in Delaware and New York arising out of this failed acquisition. 

Cerberus had this to say about United Rental's Delaware action for specific performance in a press release issued November 19th:

"We believe that United Rentals has been less than forthright in its legal filings and its communications concerning those filings.  The fact is that RAM negotiated for and obtained the right to withdraw from the Merger Agreement of July 22, 2007 and instead make a one-time payment in the aggregate amount of US $100 million.  This ability to walk away from the transaction with this limited exposure was specifically bargained for, is clearly and unambiguously stated in the Merger Agreement and related documentation, and is not in any way conditional on the occurrence of a material adverse change, the termination of the Merger Agreement by United Rentals or any other event."

Also, according to Bloomberg, Cerberus started its own lawsuit in New York Supreme Court seeking a declaration that its maximum exposure to United Rentals is $100 million. In the suit, Cerberus says United Rentals has no remedy other than the right to pursue the $100 million brake up fee, which serves as a cap for any or all losses or damages relating to or arising out of the merger agreement.

Let's see where that clear and unambiguous statement appears in the merger agreement.  Section 8.2(c) of the agreement says:

"In the event that this Agreement is terminated by [United Rentals] pursuant to Section 8.1(d)(i) or Section 8.1(d)(ii), then [Cerberus] shall pay $100,000,000 to [United Rentals] as promptly as reasonably practicable (and, in any event, within two business days following such termination), payable by wire transfer of same day funds."

OK then.  Section 8.1(d)(i) says that United Rental can terminate the agreement upon certain breaches by Cerberus of the merger agreement, and Section 8.1(d)(ii) says that United Rental can terminate the agreement if the merger isn't completed by a certain date.  Neither of these things has happened, and United Rentals isn't seeking the fee. 

Later on, in Section 8.2(e), there is a clause limiting liability for termination events to $100 million.  It says that United Rental's right to terminate the merger agreement under Sections 8.1(d)(i) or (ii) and receive the $100 million fee under Section 8.2(c) is the "sole and exclusive remedy" of United Rentals against Cerberus for "any and all loss or damage suffered as a result thereof" and Cerberus shall not have "any further liability or obligation of any kind or nature relating to or arising out of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Agreement as a result of such termination."  This fee is "the sole and exclusive remedy for recovery" in the event of "the termination of this Agreement by [United Rentals] in compliance with the provisions of Section 8.1(d)(i) or (ii)."  

So far, it looks as though United Rentals has the winning position, as this language pretty clearly says that the $100 million payment is the sole remedy only in the situation where United Rentals has terminated the merger agreement due to a misrepresentation or failed deadline.  Up until now, there isn't any absolute cap on liability if Cerberus breaches the agreement and walks away.

But keep reading.  At the very end of Section 8.2(e), comes the provision that finally supports Cerberus:

"In no event, whether or not this Agreement has been terminated pursuant to any provision hereof, shall [Cerberus], either individually or in the aggregate, be subject to any liability in excess of [$100 million] for any or all losses or damages relating to or arising out of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, including breaches by [Cerberus] of any representations, warranties, covenants or agreements contained in this Agreement, and in no event shall [United Rentals] seek equitable relief or seek to recover any money damages in excess of such amount from [Cerberus].

That's pretty clear.  Although there is plenty of language in the agreement that appears to support United Rentals' position, this one sentence appearing at the end of Section 8.2(e) seems to cap Cerberus' exposure at $100 million.   The stock market seems to agree as well.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

United Rentals Inc. recently sued the shell companies formed by Cerberus Capital Management to acquire the company after Cerberus informed it that it was not prepared to proceed with the $7 billion deal. Cerberus wants to cancel the deal because of trouble with financing. United Rentals is doing fine, having just reported a great quarter. The lawsuit raises an interesting issue on the interplay between the specific performance remedy and a liquidated damages provision providing for a $100 million payment in the event the merger agreement is canceled.

Cerberus and United Rental agreed to the deal in July 2007. The merger agreement has detailed provisions regarding financing. For example, it provides that if the Cerberus entities are not able to obtain financing from syndicated sources, it will draw down on a $4 billion of bridge financing commitments given by a group of lenders including Banc of America, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers. As everyone knows, the syndication market for these deals has dried up, so people are looking at the bridge financing package.

Cerberus went along through the fall and the United Rental shareholder vote as though everything were fine. Several days ago, apparently reacting to pressure from the bridge lenders, it notified United Rental that it was not prepared to impair its relationship with the bridge lenders by forcing them to fund, even though the merger agreement required them to do so. Instead, it notified United Rental that it “elected not to consummate the transaction” and would pay a break-up fee of $100 million.

Cerberus or its advisers also leaked news of the potential breakup to the press and the stock dropped fast, erasing more than $1.2 billion of market cap.

The lawsuit is a study in the remedy of specific enforcement. United Rental wants to force the Cerberus entities to go through with the deal, and wants the Delaware Chancery Court to order Cerberus to draw down the bridge financing. Cerberus on the other hand acts as though it holds an option to buy the company which can be canceled by paying the $100 million break up fee. 

The break up fee section says the fee is due only if the merger agreement is terminated. Cerberus doesn’t seem to have the right to terminate the agreement. Cerberus is counting on the fact that specific performance is not a favorite judicial remedy, especially where the parties have contemplated a specific financial damages remedy, like a break up fee. But this agreement has all the makings of a good specific performance action. 

Right now, the market doesn’t think the chances of United Rentals are so good, as the stock price is substantially below the merger price.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Deep within Blackstone's recent 10Q, in the MD&A section, the company discusses the negative impact that the "considerable turbulence" in the housing and sub-prime mortgage markets has had on other fixed income markets. 

"Deteriorating conditions in fixed income markets prevented lenders from syndicating senior loans and high yield debt."

Translation:  when the music stopped the the banks got stuck holding our last deals.

"[T]he backlog resulting from pending private equity-led transactions reached record levels."

Translation:  the banks can't get rid of the paper.

"This backlog resulted in lenders becoming less willing to fund new, large-sized acquisitions and as a consequence, the volume of new private equity acquisitions declined significantly in the quarter."

Translation:  until the pipeline gets opened we can't get the big dogs closed.

"Recently announced private equity-led acquisitions have mostly been smaller in size, with less leverage and less favorable terms for the debt provided, including more onerous loan covenants."

Translation:  looks like it's back to Plan A.

"The duration of current conditions in the credit markets is unknown."

No translation needed.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Judge Christopher A. Boyko's order dismissing a number of foreclosure actions brought by a CDO trustee throws a hard light on a common practice in real estate loan syndication.  Due to the cost of  properly assigning the notes and mortgages that get tossed into the CDO trust, the assignments are not actually completed.  Instead, documents are signed expressing an "intent" to assign.  A spokesman for Deutsche Bank, the CDO trustee, said that skipping the assignment process :

"[Is] typically done as a matter of cost efficiency, since for some extremely high percentage of mortgages there will never be any foreclosure activity, there's no legal need for the assignments to be recorded until they need to be used." 

Because the assignments were not completed at the time the foreclosure actions were filed, Judge Boyko ruled that the CDO trustee lacked standing to bring the action.  A dismissal on these grounds is not based on the merits, and the trustee is free to refile the action once it completes the assignment paperwork.

Deutsche Bank tried the compelling argument that “‘Judge, you just don’t understand how things work.’”  That didn't go down well with Judge Boyko, who wrote that this attitude “reveals a condescending mindset and quasi-monopolistic system where financial institutions have traditionally controlled, and still control, the foreclosure process.”

The balance of power in the foreclosure process may tip toward plaintiff's attorneys if other courts begin demanding proper documentation of syndicated loans.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Knowing how to get out of a deal is often as important as knowing how to get in.  When a company blows up, it's easy to find a representation that went awry.  But when things turn sour because of legislation or macro economic issues, you've got to look at the MAC clause.

The MAC, or material adverse change, clause sets the conditions under which a deal may be terminated without penalty. MAC exceptions, which are often appended to such clauses, outline specific circumstances under which the MAC doesn't apply, meaning the deal must proceed even if there is a material change.

During the deal frenzy of the past several years, sellers have had the upper hand in negotiating deal terms, a trend that has extended to the MAC clause. To win deals, buyers have agreed to loose MAC clauses with lots of exceptions, or in some cases have foregone MACs altogether.

The litigation currently pending in Delaware between SLM (Sallie Mae) and J.C. Flowers & Co. will, if it goes that far, shape the understanding of MAC clauses for the next few years.  J.C. Flowers and its partners have sought to walk away from the deal, in part on the basis that new Federal legislation will decrease the earning of the company.  SLM has of course insisted that the deal must go through, and issued a press release saying that "core earnings" at the company will be negatively impacted by only 1.8 to 2.1 percent annually over the next 5 years.  The issue is whether the MAC clause is triggered by the adverse impact of the new Federal legislation.  The clause reads as follows:

"Material Adverse Effect" means a material adverse effect on the financial condition, business, or results of operations of the Company and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole, except to the extent any such effect results from: ... (b) changes in Applicable Law provided that, for purposes of this definition, "changes in Applicable Law" shall not include any changes in Applicable Law relating specifically to the education finance industry that are in the aggregate more adverse to the Company and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole, than the legislative and budget proposals described under the heading "Recent Developments" in the Company 10-K, in each case in the form proposed publicly as of the date of the Company 10-K) or interpretations thereof by any Governmental Authority..."

As the highlighted language shows, SLM and JC Flowers were acutely aware of the potential impact of the new Federal legislation on the earnings of Sallie Mae.  This was not a thunderbolt from out of the blue.

SLM's position is that the "core earnings" of the company will only be reduced by 1.8 to 2.1 percent  MORE than what was already presented in the 10-K.  This sets the bar well under the 10% figure which most lawyers and judges would agree is "material".  As the M&A Law Prof Blog points out, the Delaware courts set a high bar for proving a MAC.  Under these cases the party asserting a MAC has the burden of proving that the adverse change will have long-term effects and must be materially significant.

Of course the issue may be settled before any trial.  Justine Strine has been pressing the sides to settle.  A renegotiated price is the likely outcome, as SLM will not likely want to remain in the public eye after this battle.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 What do you call a guy who gives you a non-binding letter of intent to buy your company for $15.5 million, waits a few months before giving you another non-binding letter, and then sues you when you sign a binding contract to sell your company for $30.5 million?  In Nebraska, he’s called Kelly Conolly.

Conolly worked as a terminal manager for Clark Brothers Transfer, a trucking company based in Nebraska.  James Clark was the company's president and majority shareholder.  In early 2003, Conolly began talking with Clark about buying the company.  After months of negotiating, they executed a confidentiality agreement on October 17, 2003, which gave Conolly financial information about the company.  Clark asked Conolly to give him a written purchase offer in 2 weeks.  Conolly sent another non-binding letter of intent without a purchase offer.  The letter also left the purchase price open.

Clark and Conolly met the next day, orally agreed on a purchase price of $15.5 million, shook hands and left all the other terms open. Clark asked for a firm purchase offer within two weeks.  Six weeks later, Conolly's attorney sent a letter saying Conolly was interested in purchasing the company "pursuant to the terms contained in this non-binding letter of intent."  The letter named a price but reiterated that it was not a binding commitment by either party.  Conolly sent Clark an email stating, "of course this is just preliminary and a formal proposal will be forthcoming once we reach an agreement."  Six weeks later, Clark sold the company to another buyer for $30.5 million.

Conolly argued that the parties had a contract when they agreed on the price and shook hands.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that that the terms of the oral agreement were not “sufficiently definite to demonstrate an objective intent to be bound” at the time the parties shook hands.  The parties were still negotiating many basic terms. 

Wikipedia says that chutzpa is the quality of audacity, for good or for bad.  That may be the right word.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks