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

Merck & Co. structured its acquisition of Schering-Plough Corp. as a reverse merger to avoid tripping a change of control provision in an important distribution agreement. This has received a lot of attention, not surprisingly. The distribution agreement (for the rheumatoid arthritis drug Remicade^®) brought in $518 million for Schering in the first quarter of 2009, constituting 18% of the company’s sales. In today’s post on the deal’s structure, we’ll summarize some of the terms of the Merck-Schering merger agreement and consider the importance to the M&A process of getting consents to change of control provisions in a target company’s material contracts.

Change of Control Provisions in Material Contracts

Generally, receiving consents or waivers to change of control provisions in material contracts is set out as a closing condition to an acquisition or merger. Indeed, determining which of a target’s contracts contain change of control provisions constitutes an important part of the pre-acquisition legal due diligence process. For some transactions, failure to obtain the appropriate consents may materially affect the value of the target company or may interrupt the target’s business operations if the deal were to go through. 

Take the case of a company whose sole assets comprise a group of television broadcasting stations. These stations rely on programming contracts they have with national network and cable television producers in order to provide most of their viewing content to their audiences. If the acquisition of the company by another corporation were to allow the television producers to terminate the programming agreements, the company’s broadcast stations may go off the air once the transaction is completed.     

Many counterparties insist on change of control provisions in important contracts on the grounds that they are reaching an agreement with a specific company and do not think it reasonable that they should later be bound to an unknown third party by the same terms. That’s the most likely rationale behind the change of control provision in Schering’s distribution agreement with Centocor, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. As the creator and developer of the lucrative Remicade^® and other arthritis medications, Centocor agreed to share profits from international sales of some of its drugs with Schering in exchange for Schering’s distribution of the drugs outside of the United States. But if Schering suffers a change of control, the distribution agreement allows Centocor to terminate the agreement, causing all rights to profits from worldwide sales of the drugs to revert to Centocor. 

Last year, Remicade^® alone generated over $2.1 billion in sales for Schering. A great deal of money is at stake here. Merck, the potential acquirer of Schering, is a major pharmaceutical rival of Johnson & Johnson. The normal M&A process of procuring waivers to change of control provisions in material contracts does not seem to have worked. Instead, Merck and Schering decided to use the business reorganization technique known as a reverse merger for an unusual purpose: to avoid a change of control.          

The Reverse Merger Deal Structure

The Merck-Schering merger agreement contemplates a two-step transaction involving Merck, Schering, and Schering’s two special purpose, subsidiary holding companies, Blue, Inc. and Purple, Inc. In step one of the merger, Blue will merge into Schering and each share of Schering will be converted into the right to receive (i) 0.5767 shares of the surviving Schering corporation and (ii) $10.50 in cash. In step two of the merger, Purple will merge into Merck and each share of Merck will be converted into 1 share of the surviving Schering corporation. 

After the completion of these two steps, the surviving Merck corporation will be a wholly owned subsidiary of the surviving Schering corporation. Yet, the shareholders of pre-merger Merck will own approximately 68% of the surviving Schering corporation and shareholders of pre-merger Schering will own around 32% of the surviving Schering corporation. Although Merck will become a subsidiary of Schering, Merck’s pre-merger shareholders will together possess a supermajority of the voting and economic rights (or beneficial ownership) of Merck’s new parent company, Schering. 

One peculiarity of the Merck-Schering reverse merger transaction structure is that between steps one and two Merck finds itself in a slightly precarious situation. After the completion of step one, Schering’s pre-merger shareholders will have received shares of the surviving Schering corporation and a cash payout, but Merck’s pre-merger shareholders will not yet have seized control over the management of the surviving Schering corporation.  

The merger agreement has come up with a way to protect Merck’s shareholders during this governance gap. Simultaneously with the completion of step one of the merger, Schering has agreed that its board will cause all of its directors (other than 3 specified exceptions) to resign and to elect the members of pre-merger Merck’s board of directors as the directors of the surviving Schering corporation. Even before pre-merger Merck’s shareholders acquire their supermajority share of the beneficial ownership of the surviving Schering corporation after step two, they indirectly will have already taken the helm of the surviving Schering corporation through the election of their own directors to the new parent company’s board.        

In our next post on the deal, we’ll analyze the change of control provision in the Schering-Centocor distribution agreement and assess whether Johnson & Johnson has any colorable arguments that Schering will indeed undergo a change of control if the Merck-Schering reverse merger closes.

Related Post:  Can Merck-Shering's Deal Structure Avert a Change of Control?

                          Pharma Contractual Dispute: Biogen and Elan to See Each Other in Court

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A signed merger agreement with Accel-KKR in hand, Sum Total’s board has a month to go to the market to find a better deal. On Friday, Sum Total Systems, Inc. announced that Accel-KKR had offered its shareholders $3.80 per share in a definitive merger agreement filed with the SEC. For this deal at least, the private equity fund has foregone the LBO model, financing the entire $124 million price tag with an equity investment from a KKR fund focused on mid-market technology companies. By the time the markets closed on Friday, Sum Total stood at $3.83 a share, a 22% jump from the previous day’s closing price of $3.13. Trading volume for Sum Total’s shares skyrocketed to 5,759,368 on the day, compared to an average daily trading volume of 330,000 shares. 

Investors seem eager to become beneficiaries of an anticipated bidding war. While Sum Total’s board of directors has recommended the KKR merger, the company’s shareholders have yet to vote on the deal. According to the website Mergers Unleashed, a JPM Securities’ analyst report affirmed its $5 per share target value for Sum Total’s stock after Accel-KKR announced the merger deal. KKR has laid its cash and deal terms on the table, now it’s time to see whether anyone else will sit down and ante up.  

Over the course of the day, we’ll take a look at some of the noteworthy deal protection measures in the KKR-Sum Total merger agreement: 

“Go Shop” Period and "No Shop" Provisions

The Sum Total board of directors has a one-month “go shop” period (ending just after midnight on May 24) to solicit competing offers for the company’s shares. From May 24 until the company’s shareholders approve the merger, Sum Total’s board may not engage in any discussions with other parties regarding the sale of the company. This “no shop” provision has a customary fiduciary exception that allows the company’s board to entertain unsolicited written acquisition proposals so that Sum Total’s directors can fulfill their Revlon duties under Delaware corporate law to bargain for the highest price obtainable for the company’s shareholders. Though the Revlon court observed that “no shop” provisions are a legal deal protection measure under Delaware law, the court held that an absolute “no shop” prohibition on a company’s board of directors “when a board’s duty becomes that of an auctioneer for selling the company to the highest bidder” is impermissible.     

Even if it receives a better offer, Sum Total can’t terminate the agreement without first going back to KKR. If the board considers approving a merger agreement with another buyer, Sum Total must give KKR detailed information about the proposal, negotiate a potential counteroffer with KKR, and permit KKR to present a revised merger agreement to the board of directors for their consideration. KKR has found some relief, it seems, from the Revlon restrictions placed on their ability to lock-up the deal by negotiating a right of first refusal if a competing bidder proposes a higher price.    

Break-Up Fee

If the merger agreement is terminated because the Sum Total stockholders don’t approve the deal, the company breaches certain of its covenants (including the no shop restrictions), or the board changes its recommendation without entering into a merger agreement with another buyer, Sum Total must pay KKR a $4.95 million break-up fee. If the company terminates the agreement because the board has authorized the company to execute a merger agreement with another buyer offering the company’s shareholders a better deal, then KKR’s break-up fee is reduced to $3.1 million.  

Update:  Other aspects of the deal protection measures in the KKR-Sum Total merger agreement are discussed in:

No "Financing Out" Required: KKR's Equity Financing of the Sum Total Merger

Sum-Total's Remedies Under the KKR Merger Agreement

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The private equity sponsors behind the Clear Chanel acquisition – Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners -- are looking at the possibility of paying a $500 million reverse termination fee to Clear Channel if they are forced to walk away for lack of bank financing. Maybe the sponsors can recover some of this from the lenders who promised to provide the financing – time will tell. The banks committed to provide about $16 billion of new debt, which they may struggle to sell given turmoil in the leveraged loan market.   And even if they do manage to sell it, they might face a mark-to-market hit of about $2.5 billion. Lawsuits recently begun in New York and Texas may clarify whether the banks are responsible for causing the deal to break.

The sponsors will have a hard time arguing that a material adverse change in Clear Channel’s fortunes has occurred, given that the company reported a 52 percent rise in fourth-quarter earnings. Assuming that some or all of the break-up fee has to be paid by the sponsors, who really has to foot that bill – the limited partners in the funds or Bain and THC?

An LBO partnership agreement typically provides that deal expenses, including “broken deal” costs, are paid by the investment partnership, namely, the limited partners. However, these costs are typically offset against the management fee paid by the fund to the sponsors. That provision makes the sponsor ultimately responsible for broken deal costs, but caps the exposure at the amount of the management fee. 

The impact of this situation can be seen in Blackstone’s recent 10K filing. There, in the MD&A section, Blackstone described certain shortfalls in management fee income that occurred during 2007. Prominent among the causes for this shortfall was a reverse termination fee that was paid when Blackstone terminated the acquisition of a subsidiary of PPH Corporation. Here is the relevant portion of Blackstone’s MD&A section:

"An increase in fund management fees of $47.2 million, as a result of $4.68 billion of additional capital raised for BCP V during the year ended December 31, 2007, was entirely offset by increased management fee reductions of $47.4 million. The increase in management fee reductions was due to increases of $38.2 million of broken deal expenses, which included a $24.2 million reverse termination fee incurred in connection with the termination of BCP V’s planned acquisition of a subsidiary of PHH Corporation, and $9.2 million of placement fees paid for additional capital raised by BCP V."

No wonder Bain and THL are suing the banks left and right.

• Email This
• 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.

• Email This
• 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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The buyer of a company will often make specific promises regarding hiring and retaining employees of the business. If so, the purchase agreement will identify the buyer’s obligations in this regard and identify the benefit plans, severance obligations, and accrued bonus and vacation rights of the transferred employees. For example, the buyer may agree to grant service credit to employees for purposes of vesting in benefits, even though these credits may not be required by law.

The purchase agreement will specify the circumstances under which the agreement can be terminated.  Both parties will be able to terminate if the other party breaches the agreement and fails to cure the breach after being given the opportunity to do so. Also, the contract can be terminated if the closing does not occur by a defined date. This may occur, for example, if a third party or governmental approval is needed but can’t be obtained, or if financing can’t be obtained within a defined time period. This outside termination date is usually negotiated in the term sheet.

As the parties generally conduct the transaction across the borders of several states, the laws of one state will be chosen to govern the contract. Also, the courts of a specified jurisdiction will be chosen to hear disputes arising under the contract. In lieu of court adjudications, the parties may elect to implement an alternative form of dispute resolution, such as mediation and arbitration.

The purchase agreement will often have a number of things attached to it, such as schedules of information, forms of notes, or equity instruments delivered as part of the purchase price and allocations of the purchase price. These items are specifically incorporated in the purchase agreement and often constitute part of the items delivered by the parties at the closing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks