DOCSLIB.ORG

United States MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS COUNTRY COMPARATIVE GUIDES 2021 The Legal 500 Country Comparative Guides United States MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS Contributing firm Cravath, Swaine Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP & Moore LLP Richard Hall Corporate Partner | [email protected] This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of mergers & acquisitions laws and regulations applicable in United States. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit legal500.com/guides Mergers & Acquisitions: United States UNITED STATES MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS 1. What are the key rules/laws relevant to as business combinations and the obligations of M&A and who are the key regulatory directors in connection with M&A activity). Because authorities? many major U.S. corporations are incorporated in Delaware, the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) In the U.S., both the federal government and state and the common law embodied in decisions of the governments regulate matters relevant to M&A. Delaware courts are generally the most important and influential state corporation law. However, on key At the federal level, M&A activity is subject to the federal matters relevant to M&A activity, a number of states securities laws, principally the Securities Act of 1933 (the have diverged from Delaware and so it is necessary to Securities Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 consider the law of the state of incorporation of the (the Exchange Act). The Securities and Exchange relevant companies in connection with a transaction. Commission (SEC) is the federal agency charged with enforcing the federal securities laws and has Companies in certain industries such as banking, power promulgated extensive rules and regulations under both and utilities, insurance, airlines, media and the Securities Act and Exchange Act. The Securities Act telecommunications may also be covered by specific governs the offer and sale of securities, and so state and federal regulatory regimes. potentially applies to any transaction in which securities are being purchased, sold or exchanged, including M&A 2. What is the current state of the market? transactions. The Exchange Act deals with, among other things, ongoing reporting obligations for public The U.S. M&A market in 2020 was a tale of three parts. companies, tender offers, proxy statements and The first two months of the year was a fair start to the shareholder obligations to disclose ownership and year, with transaction numbers and volumes in line with transactions with respect to shares of public companies. prior years. The March though June months were All M&A transactions must also comply with the federal severely adversely affected by COVID-19. The second antitrust laws, which are enforced by the Antitrust half of 2020 reflected a significant recovery from Q2 Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the 2020, with Q3 2020 showing a quarter-over-quarter Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Acquisitions by non- increase of over 400% in dollar volume terms. By the U.S. entities are also potentially subject to review by the time the books closed on 2020 U.S. M&A, overall 2020 Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). U.S. M&A volumes were down approximately 16% by deal count and approximately 21% by dollar volume, In the U.S., corporations are incorporated under the laws although H2 2020 was one of the best six months for of a particular state (rather than federal law). As a result, almost 15 years. state law principally addresses matters such as the formation and dissolution of corporations, duties of The most significant new feature in the U.S. M&A market boards of directors, mergers and other forms of business in 2020 was the special purpose acquisition company (or combinations, shareholder voting requirements, “SPAC”) transactions. 2020 saw 248 SPAC IPOs in the shareholder meetings and amendments to U.S. in 2020, which will have a significant (and lagging) organizational documents. State law relevant to positive impact on SPAC M&A. corporations consists of both the state corporation statutes enacted by state governments as well as common law arising out of judicial decisions. Though 3. Which market sectors have been state laws relevant to corporations have many common particularly active recently? elements across states, there are significant differences among them (particularly with respect to matters such In Q4 2020 in the U.S., the leading sectors were PDF Generated: 7-04-2021 2/10 © 2021 Legalease Ltd Mergers & Acquisitions: United States technology, pharma, medical and biotechnology and company’s stock directly from its shareholders followed financial services, with approximately 26%, 15% and by a “back-end” merger through which the buyer 10% of Q4 dollar volume. acquires any remaining outstanding shares. A shareholder vote on the back-end merger may be required (depending on applicable state law}, but the 4. What do you believe will be the three buyer will be able to ensure that it passes since it will most significant factors influencing M&A own a majority of the outstanding stock as a result of the activity over the next 2 years? tender offer. Two-step transactions are most common in all-cash acquisitions. We expect M&A activity in the U.S. over the next two years to be heavily influenced by the SPAC IPOs and In addition, acquisitions of private companies can also be related demand for de-SPACing transactions. In addition, effected through stock purchases and asset purchases. we expect there will continue to be something of a rebound from the slowdown in Q2 2020, as well as 6. What information relating to a target expected recovery of the U.S. economy driven by unprecedented levels of fiscal stimulus and continued company will be publicly available and to monetary stimulus. Of course, any predictions about the what extent is a target company obliged to recovery of the U.S. economy are heavily dependent on disclose diligence related information to a improvements in overall COVID-19 situation. potential acquirer? Public companies in the U.S. are generally required to 5. What are the key means of effecting the file annual and quarterly reports with the SEC. acquisition of a publicly traded company? Among other things, these reports provide a description For public companies, there are two primary transaction of the company’s business, summaries of material structures-a single-step merger and a two-step events (including legal proceedings}, selected financial transaction consisting of a tender offer followed by a information and financial statements (which are fully merger. audited, in the case of annual reports) and management’s discussion and analysis of the company’s One-step mergers are effected under state law, and the financial condition and results of operations. Public consideration in a merger can be cash, securities companies are also required to file reports on Form 8-K (including stock of the buyer) or a combination of both. with the SEC to report certain events, including entry Once the parties reach an agreement which is approved into material definitive agreements, acquisitions or by the boards of directors of both companies, the target dispositions of businesses or significant amounts of company submits the deal to its shareholders for assets and changes of control. Public companies approval. A vote of the shareholders of the acquirer may generally must also file proxy statements providing also be required in a transaction involving stock information regarding the shareholder meeting to which consideration depending on the amount of acquirer they relate, the matters to be voted on by the stock to be issued and will be required if the acquirer is shareholders at such meeting and what the company’s itself merging (such as in a “merger of equals” recommendation is with respect thereto, and other transaction). In acquisitions, if shareholders approve the information relating to the company such as a merger, the target company typically merges with a description of the board of directors and its committees, wholly owned subsidiary of the buyer, with the target executive and director compensation and ownership of company as the surviving corporation. The result is that the company’s securities by directors, officers and large the target company becomes a wholly owned subsidiary shareholders. of the buyer. Merger transactions may use a similar structure or may involve each party merging with a When seeking shareholder approval of a transaction, merger subsidiary of a newly formed holding company targets must also make additional information available with the shareholders of each merger party receiving to their shareholders, such as the background and shares of the holding company. Single-step mergers are reasons for the transaction and summaries of the most common in deals in which the consideration financial analyses of its bankers. Targets typically also includes stock or there is expected to be a lengthy disclose to their shareholders projections made available regulatory delay. to the buyer in such situations. In a two-step transaction, the buyer makes a tender offer Beyond what companies are required to file with the to acquire not less than a majority of the target SEC, a great deal of information is publicly available on PDF Generated: 7-04-2021 3/10 © 2021 Legalease Ltd Mergers & Acquisitions: United States company websites and from industry and trade Moreover, in practice, hostile takeover attempts publications and news sources. Except in very limited generally turn into a battle over the board of the target circumstances, filings with the SEC are publicly available company, either by attempting to replace the directors through the SEC’s EDGAR website. with a friendly slate of directors that will negotiate with the hostile bidder, or by attempting to persuade the A target company has no general obligation to disclose directors to change their minds.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix 10 Glossary of Terms Related to Venture Capital and Other Private Equity Or Debt Financing
    APPENDIX 10 GLOSSARY OF TERMS RELATED TO VENTURE CAPITAL AND OTHER PRIVATE EQUITY OR DEBT FINANCING 401(K) Plan: A type of qualified retirement plan in which employees make salary-reduced, pre-tax contributions to an employee trust. In many cases, the employer will match employee contributions up to a specified level. - A - Accredited Investor: Rule 501 of the SEC regulations defines an individual accredited investor as: “Any natural person whose individual net worth or joint net worth with that person’s spouse at the time of his purchase exceeds $1,000,000”; OR “Any natural person who had an individual income in excess of $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with that person’s spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of those years and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.” For the complete definition of “accredited investor,” see the SEC web site. Accrued Interest: The interest due on preferred stock or a bond since the last interest payment was made. ACRS: Accelerated Cost Recovery System. The IRS-approved method of calculating depreciation expense for tax purposes. Also known as Accelerated Depreciation. ADR: American Depositary Receipt (ADRs). A security issued by a U.S. bank in place of the foreign shares held in trust by that bank, thereby facilitating the trading of foreign shares in U.S. markets. Advisory Board: A group of external advisors to a private equity group or portfolio company. Advice provided varies from overall strategy to portfolio valuation. Less formal than a Board of Directors.
    [Show full text]
  • Adopting a Poison Pill in Response to Shareholder Activism
    IN THE BOARDROOM CAPITAL MARKETS & CORPORATE GOVERNANCE Ismagilov/Shutterstock.com Adopting a Poison Pill in Response to Shareholder Activism In his regular column, Frank Aquila drafts a memo to a board explaining the considerations it should evaluate when deciding whether to adopt a poison pill. FRANCIS J. AQUILA PARTNER SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP Frank has a broad multidisciplinary practice that includes extensive experience in negotiated and unsolicited mergers and acquisitions, activist and takeover defense, complex cross-border transactions, global joint ventures, and private equity transactions. He regularly counsels boards of directors and board committees on corporate governance matters and crisis management. MEMORANDUM TO: The Board of Directors FROM: Frank Aquila RE: Considerations When Adopting a Poison Pill in Response to Shareholder Activism As we have discussed, the Investor has just filed a Schedule 13D with the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing equity holdings in the Company equal to 8.8% of the Company’s common stock. The Investor has also disclosed its intentions to increase its stake to approximately 15%, seek representation on the Company’s Board, and then advocate for either a spin-off of certain business units or a sale of the Company. 22 April 2016 | Practical Law © 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. To strengthen the Board’s negotiating leverage and provide adequate time to evaluate what alternatives would be in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders, the Board is considering adopting a shareholder rights plan, commonly known as a poison pill, with a 10% threshold. Correctly implemented, the triggering of this poison pill would massively dilute the Investor’s voting and equity stake as soon as the Investor acquires 10% of the Company’s outstanding common stock by allowing all other shareholders to purchase additional shares at a steep discount.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Notice 16-08
    Regulatory Notice 16-08 Contingency Offerings February 2016 Private Placements and Public Offerings Subject Notice Type to a Contingency 00 Guidance Executive Summary Suggested Routing FINRA’s review of securities offering documents has revealed instances 00 Compliance in which broker-dealers have not complied with the contingency offering 00 Corporate Finance requirements of Rules 10b-9 and 15c2-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 00 Legal 1934 (SEA). FINRA is publishing this Notice to provide guidance regarding the 00 Registered Representatives requirements of SEA Rules 10b-9 and 15c2-4 and to remind broker-dealers 00 Senior Management of their responsibility to have procedures reasonably designed to achieve 00 compliance with these rules. 1 Syndicate 00 Underwriting Questions regarding this Notice should be directed to: 00 Joseph E. Price, Senior Vice President, Corporate Financing/Advertising Key Topics Regulation, at (240) 386-4623 or [email protected]; 00 Bona Fide Purchases 00 00 Paul Mathews, Vice President, Corporate Financing, at (240) 386-4639 Contingency Offerings or [email protected]; or 00 Escrow 00 00 Josh Bandes, Senior Investigator, Corporate Financing, at (240) 386-5431 Net Capital or [email protected]. 00 Underwriting Background & Discussion Referenced Rules & Notices 00 Broker-dealers that participate in best efforts public and private securities FINRA Rule 2010 offerings that have a contingency (i.e., an underlying condition or qualification 00 Notice to Members 84-7 that must take place by a specified date prior to the issuer taking possession 00 Notice to Members 84-64 of the offering proceeds) must safeguard investors’ funds they receive until 00 Notice to Members 87-61 the contingency is satisfied.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 IRREVOCABLE SUBSCRIPTION UNDERTAKING TO: Tryg A/S
    EXECUTION VERSION IRREVOCABLE SUBSCRIPTION UNDERTAKING TO: Tryg A/S Klausdalsbrovej 601 2670 Ballerup Denmark ("Tryg") and Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc 25 Cabot Square Canary Wharf London E14 4QA United Kingdom ("Morgan Stanley") and Danske Bank A/S Holmens Kanal 2 - 12 DK-1092 Copenhagen Denmark ("Danske Bank" and together with Morgan Stanley, the "Underwriters") FROM: TryghedsGruppen SMBA Hummeltoftevej 49 2830 Virum Denmark (the "Foundation", "us", "we") Date: 18 November 2020 1 RECOMMENDED CASH OFFER TO ACQUIRE RSA INSURANCE GROUP PLC AND RIGHTS ISSUE IN TRYG A/S 1.1 We understand that Tryg together with Regent Bidco Limited (“Bidco”) and Intact Financial Corporation ("Intact") contemplate an acquisition by Bidco of the entire issued and to be issued share capital of RSA Insurance Group plc ("RSA") (the "Acquisition") by way of court-sanctioned scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the UK Companies Act 2006 (including any new, increased, renewed or revised scheme of arrangement) (the ''Scheme''). In connection with the Acquisition, 1 Intact and Tryg have entered into a Separation Agreement with respect to the Scandinavia Sepa- ration, on the terms and conditions as summarised in the draft announcement attached to this irrevocable undertaking as Appendix 1.1 (the ''Rule 2.7 Announcement''), together with such additional terms and conditions as may be required by the Applicable Requirements (as defined in Clause 1.3 below) or as may be agreed in writing between Tryg, Intact, Bidco and RSA provided that such additional terms shall not increase Foundation's payment obligations under this irrevoca- ble undertaking or change the consideration contributed by Tryg to the Acquisition as indicated in the Rule 2.7 Announcement without the Foundation's prior consent.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Public Offerings
    November 2017 Initial Public Offerings An Issuer’s Guide (US Edition) Contents INTRODUCTION 1 What Are the Potential Benefits of Conducting an IPO? 1 What Are the Potential Costs and Other Potential Downsides of Conducting an IPO? 1 Is Your Company Ready for an IPO? 2 GETTING READY 3 Are Changes Needed in the Company’s Capital Structure or Relationships with Its Key Stockholders or Other Related Parties? 3 What Is the Right Corporate Governance Structure for the Company Post-IPO? 5 Are the Company’s Existing Financial Statements Suitable? 6 Are the Company’s Pre-IPO Equity Awards Problematic? 6 How Should Investor Relations Be Handled? 7 Which Securities Exchange to List On? 8 OFFER STRUCTURE 9 Offer Size 9 Primary vs. Secondary Shares 9 Allocation—Institutional vs. Retail 9 KEY DOCUMENTS 11 Registration Statement 11 Form 8-A – Exchange Act Registration Statement 19 Underwriting Agreement 20 Lock-Up Agreements 21 Legal Opinions and Negative Assurance Letters 22 Comfort Letters 22 Engagement Letter with the Underwriters 23 KEY PARTIES 24 Issuer 24 Selling Stockholders 24 Management of the Issuer 24 Auditors 24 Underwriters 24 Legal Advisers 25 Other Parties 25 i Initial Public Offerings THE IPO PROCESS 26 Organizational or “Kick-Off” Meeting 26 The Due Diligence Review 26 Drafting Responsibility and Drafting Sessions 27 Filing with the SEC, FINRA, a Securities Exchange and the State Securities Commissions 27 SEC Review 29 Book-Building and Roadshow 30 Price Determination 30 Allocation and Settlement or Closing 31 Publicity Considerations
    [Show full text]
  • The SEC and the Failure of Federal, Takeover Regulation
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 34 Issue 2 Article 2 2007 The SEC and the Failure of Federal, Takeover Regulation Steven M. Davidoff [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven M. Davidoff, The SEC and the Failure of Federal, Takeover Regulation, 34 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2007) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol34/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW THE SEC AND THE FAILURE OF FEDERAL TAKEOVER REGULATION Steven M. Davidoff VOLUME 34 WINTER 2007 NUMBER 2 Recommended citation: Steven M. Davidoff, The SEC and the Failure of Federal Takeover Regulation, 34 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 211 (2007). THE SEC AND THE FAILURE OF FEDERAL TAKEOVER REGULATION STEVEN M. DAVIDOFF* I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 211 II. THE GOLDEN AGE OF FEDERAL TAKEOVER REGULATION.................................. 215 A. The Williams Act (the 1960s) ..................................................................... 215 B. Going-Privates (the 1970s)......................................................................... 219 C. Hostile Takeovers (the 1980s)..................................................................... 224 1. SEC Legislative
    [Show full text]
  • The New Law of Squeeze-Out Mergers
    Washington University Law Review Volume 62 Issue 3 1984 The New Law of Squeeze-Out Mergers Marc I. Steinberg University of Maryland Evalyn N. Lindahl Emory University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Marc I. Steinberg and Evalyn N. Lindahl, The New Law of Squeeze-Out Mergers, 62 WASH. U. L. Q. 351 (1984). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol62/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 62 NUMBER 3 FALL 1984 THE NEW LAW OF SQUEEZE-OUT MERGERS MARC I. STEINBERG* & EVALYN N. LINDAHL** CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 352 II. PRIOR DELAWARE CASE LAW ............................ 355 A. Singer and Its Progeny.............................. 357 B. Reaction of Other States ............................ 360 III. WEINBERGER V UOP, INc.-AN OVERVIEW ............ 361 4. Background ......................................... 362 B. The Delaware Supreme Court's Decision ............. 364 IV. FAIR DEALING UNDER WEINBERGER .................... 366 A. Presence of Independent Negotiating Committee ..... 367 B. Use of Majority of Minority Vote .................... 371 C Relation of Procedural Safeguards to Substantive Fairness ............................................. 373 V. FAIR VALUE UNDER THE APPRAISAL STATUTE .......... 376 A. Elements of Future Value ............................ 379 B. Availability of Injunctive Relief ...................... 381 C. Two-Tier Offers ..................................... 384 © 1984 by Marc I. Steinberg and Evalyn N. Lindahl. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Investor Bulletin: Reverse Mergers
    e Investor Bulletin: Reverse Mergers Introduction merger surviving public company are primarily, if not solely, those of the former private operating company. Many private companies, including some whose operations are located in foreign countries, seek to ac- cess the U.S. capital markets by merging with existing Why Pursue a Reverse Merger? public companies. These transactions are commonly referred to as “reverse mergers” or “reverse takeovers A private operating company may pursue a reverse (RTOs).” merger in order to facilitate its access to the capi- tal markets, including the liquidity that comes with having its stock quoted on a market or listed on an What is a Reverse Merger? exchange. Private operating companies generally have access only to private forms of equity, while public In a reverse merger transaction, an existing public companies potentially have access to funding from a “shell company,” which is a public reporting company broader pool of public investors. A reverse merger with few or no operations,1 acquires a private oper- often is perceived to be a quicker and cheaper method ating company—usually one that is seeking access of “going public” than an initial public offering (IPO). to funding in the U.S. capital markets. Typically, the The legal and accounting fees associated with a reverse shareholders of the private operating company ex- merger tend to be lower than for an IPO. And while change their shares for a large majority of the shares the public shell company is required to report the of the public company. Although the public shell reverse merger in a Form 8-K filing with the SEC, company survives the merger, the private operating there are no registration requirements under the company’s shareholders gain a controlling interest in Securities Act of 1933 as there would be for an IPO.
    [Show full text]
  • A Roadmap to Initial Public Offerings
    A Roadmap to Initial Public Offerings 2019 The FASB Accounting Standards Codification® material is copyrighted by the Financial Accounting Foundation, 401 Merritt 7, PO Box 5116, Norwalk, CT 06856-5116, and is reproduced with permission. This publication contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor. Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication. As used in this document, “Deloitte” means Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP, and Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, which are separate subsidiaries of Deloitte LLP. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of our legal structure. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting. Copyright © 2019 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved. Other Publications in Deloitte’s Roadmap Series Business Combinations Business Combinations — SEC Reporting Considerations Carve-Out Transactions Consolidation — Identifying a Controlling Financial Interest Contracts on an Entity’s Own Equity
    [Show full text]
  • Current Issues and Rulemaking Projects
    NOVEMBER 14, 2000 CURRENT ISSUES AND RULEMAKING PROJECTS DIVISION OF CORPORATION FINANCE Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. 20549 The Securities and Exchange Commission disclaims responsibility for any private publication or statement of any of its employees. This outline was prepared by members of the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners or other members of the staff. TABLE OF CONTENTS [Asterisks mark substantive changes from the last version of this outline posted on the web site (July 25, 2000).] I.* DIVISION ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES II. MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS A. Regulation of Takeovers and Security Holder Communications B. Cross Border Tender Offers, Rights Offers and Business Combinations C.* Mini-Tender Offers and Tender Offers for Limited Partnership Units D. Current Issues 1. Investment Banking Firm Disclaimers 2. Identifying the Bidder in a Tender Offer 3. Schedule 13E-3 Filing Obligations of Issuers or Affiliates Engaged in a Going-Private Transaction III. ELECTRONIC FILING AND TECHNOLOGY A. EDGAR B. Electronic Delivery of Information C. Interpretive Release Relating to Use of Internet Web Sites to Offer Securities, Solicit Securities Transactions or Advertise Investment Services Offshore D. Roadshows IV. SMALL BUSINESS ISSUES A. Small Business Initiatives B. Small Business Rulemaking V. INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE SECURITIES MARKETS A. Foreign Issuers in the U.S. Market B. Abusive Practices under Regulation S and Amendments to Regulation S C. International Accounting Standards D. International Disclosure Standards - Amendments to Form 20-F VI. OTHER PENDING RULEMAKING AND RECENT RULE ADOPTIONS A. Roadshows B. Proposed Amendments to Options Disclosure Document Rule C.* Financial Statements and Periodic Reports for Related Issuers and Guarantors D.* Delivery of Disclosure Documents to Households E.* Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading Rules VII.
    [Show full text]
  • A Theory of Merger-Driven Ipos
    JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS Vol. 46, No. 5, Oct. 2011, pp. 1367–1405 COPYRIGHT 2011, MICHAEL G. FOSTER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE, WA 98195 doi:10.1017/S0022109011000421 A Theory of Merger-Driven IPOs Jim Hsieh, Evgeny Lyandres, and Alexei Zhdanov∗ Abstract We propose a model that links a firm’s decision to go public with its subsequent takeover strategy. A private bidder does not know a firm’s true valuation, which affects its gain from a potential takeover. Consequently, a private bidder pursues a suboptimal restructur- ing policy. An alternative route is to complete an initial public offering (IPO) first. An IPO reduces valuation uncertainty, leading to a more efficient acquisition strategy, therefore enhancing firm value. We calibrate the model using data on IPOs and mergers and acqui- sitions (M&As). The resulting comparative statics generate several novel qualitative and quantitative predictions, which complement the predictions of other theories linking IPOs and M&As. For example, the time it takes a newly public firm to attempt an acquisition of another firm is expected to increase in the degree of valuation uncertainty prior to the firm’s IPO and in the cost of going public, and it is expected to decrease in the valuation surprise realized at the time of the IPO. We find strong empirical support for the model’s predictions. I. Introduction Recent empirical studies suggest that firms’ initial public offerings (IPOs) and mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are not unrelated. According to a survey of ∗Hsieh, [email protected], School of Management, George Mason University, 4400 University Dr., Fairfax, VA 22030; Lyandres, [email protected], School of Management, Boston University, 595 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, MA 02445; and Zhdanov, [email protected], University of Lausanne, Extranef 237, Lausanne 1007, Switzerland and Swiss Finance Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions About Initial Public Offerings
    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS Initial public offerings (“IPOs”) are complex, time-consuming and implicate many different areas of the law and market practices. The following FAQs address important issues but are not likely to answer all of your questions. • Public companies have greater visibility. The media understanding IPOS has greater economic incentive to cover a public company than a private company because of the number of investors seeking information about their What is an IPO? investment. An “IPO” is the initial public offering by a company • Going public allows a company’s employees to of its securities, most often its common stock. In the share in its growth and success through stock united States, these offerings are generally registered options and other equity-based compensation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the structures that benefit from a more liquid stock with “Securities Act”), and the shares are often but not an independently determined fair market value. A always listed on a national securities exchange such public company may also use its equity to attract as the new York Stock exchange (the “nYSe”), the and retain management and key personnel. nYSe American LLC or one of the nasdaq markets (“nasdaq” and, collectively, the “exchanges”). The What are disadvantages of going public? process of “going public” is complex and expensive. • The IPO process is expensive. The legal, accounting upon the completion of an IPO, a company becomes and printing costs are significant and these costs a “public company,” subject to all of the regulations will have to be paid regardless of whether an IPO is applicable to public companies, including those of successful.
    [Show full text]