Canada: Delaware Court Issues Landmark Decision Regarding MAC Clause

Earlier this month, in Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi A.G., the Delaware Court of Chancery sustained a would-be buyer's termination of a merger agreement because, among other things, the target company had suffered a material adverse effect (MAE). The 246-page decision is notable for several reasons:

  • First, although MAE clauses (also called "MAC" clauses, for material adverse change) are ubiquitous in merger agreements and litigation of MAE clauses is not uncommon, only rarely has a party been successful in terminating a merger agreement in reliance on an MAE clause alone. In fact, Akorn is the first time that a Delaware court has permitted a buyer to rely upon a MAE to walk away from a deal.
  • Second, the Court's reasons provide useful guidance about the qualitative and quantitative factors that should be taken into account in determining whether a MAE has occurred.
  • Third, while the Akorn decision is not binding on any Canadian court, it could become influential on this side of the border.

Arguably, although the result may be unprecedented, the decision in Akorn did not create any new law. The facts of this case were extraordinary. The decision's greatest significance may be in illustrating that MAC clauses are not theoretical: on the right (or wrong) facts, a court will step in and permit a bidder to walk away from an agreed transaction.

The Facts

Fresenius is a German healthcare company and Akorn is a NASDAQ-listed specialty generic drug manufacturer. In April 2017, following completion of a lengthy due diligence process and iterative negotiations, Fresenius reached an agreement to acquire Akorn for US$34 per share (US$4.3 billion) in cash.

The merger agreement contained customary closing conditions, which relieved Fresenius of its obligation to complete the acquisition if, among other things and prior to closing, (a) Akorn breached its representations and warranties and the magnitude of the breach would reasonably be expected to result in an MAE (the "bringdown condition") or (b) Akorn suffered an MAE (the standalone "general MAE").

Despite Akorn having reiterated its previous full-year earnings guidance at the time of announcing the merger agreement, "...immediately after the signing of the Merger Agreement, Akorn's performance dropped off a cliff." Soon after Akorn's stockholders approved the merger, Akorn announced its second quarter results, with year-over-year revenues down by 29%, year-over-year net operating income down by 84% and year-over-year earnings per share down by 96%. Although Akorn's CEO reassured Fresenius that the downturn was temporary, Akorn's management was forced to adjust the company's earnings guidance downward and Akorn's financial performance continued to deteriorate. In November 2017, when Akorn announced its third quarter results, year-over-year revenues were down by 29%, year-over-year net operating income was down by 89% and year-over-year earnings per share were down by 105%.

Akorn's difficulties didn't end there. During Akorn's third quarter, Fresenius received two anonymous whistleblower letters that raised concerns with Akorn's product development and quality control processes and regulatory compliance. The letters triggered investigations by Fresenius and Akorn and, in reviewing the results of those investigations, the Delaware court found evidence of numerous instances of altered, missing and false data that were used in some of Akorn's regulatory applications and new product approval processes. Taken together, these findings raised concerns about the integrity of Akorn's internal controls and its regulatory compliance.

After these financial and compliance concerns surfaced, and despite its senior management team's misgivings, Fresenius maintained its public support for completing the merger until at least January 2018. In February 2018, tensions between the parties escalated as their respective legal counsel squabbled over the scope of the internal investigation and how their respective findings should be presented to Akorn's regulators. On April 18, 2018, Fresenius wrote to Akorn, asserting that Akorn had breached various provisions in the merger agreement, including regarding regulatory compliance, but offered to extend the outside date for closing to provide Akorn an opportunity to rebut Fresenius's assertions. Akorn declined that offer.

On April 22, 2018, Fresenius gave notice of termination of the merger agreement, citing both Akorn's inability to satisfy the bringdown condition and the occurrence of a standalone MAE. The following day, Akorn commenced an action seeking specific performance of the merger agreement. While the litigation was ongoing, Akorn announced its financial results for the first quarter of 2018, reporting that year-over-year revenues were down by 27%, year-over-year net operating income was down by 134% and year-over-year earnings per share were down by 170%.

The MAE Clause

MAE clauses are essentially risk allocation tools and, unsurprisingly, not all unfortunate events that may occur after signing a merger agreement and before closing will entitle a prospective buyer to walk away from a bad deal. In general terms, in a typical MAE clause (as was the case in Akorn):

  • the buyer assumes all risks associated with any adverse material change in the general economic environment, laws, accounting principles and the industry in which the target company operates ("exogenous or systematic risks" that are "beyond the control of all parties"), except to the extent that any exogenous or systematic risk has a disproportionate adverse effect on the target company; and
  • the target assumes all risks associated with any adverse material change that is specific to the target company ("endogenous risks"), as well as any exogenous or systematic risk that has a disproportionate adverse effect on the target company.

As is customary, the merger agreement in Akorn did not define what is "material." In part, that is because it can be exceedingly difficult (although not impossible) for parties to agree on precise, quantifiable metrics (eg., a decrease in sales or earnings, a prescribed decrease in stock price, a loss of a specific contract, etc.) against which to measure materiality when they are negotiating a merger agreement. In part, it might also be because the uncertainty of leaving materiality undefined creates "productive opportunities for renegotiation" should an unfortunate event occur before closing.

The Decision

In considering the application of the MAE clause in Akorn against the factual context, the Court made two important findings:

  • Akorn had breached the bringdown condition, because its representations and warranties concerning regulatory compliance were not true and correct and the magnitude of the inaccuracies would reasonably be expected to result in an MAE; and
  • The sudden and sustained drop in Akorn's business performance following execution of the merger agreement constituted a general MAE.

In its lengthy reasons, the Court identified at least five factors that supported the buyer's proper termination of the merger agreement:

  1. The suddenness of Akorn's downturn – the Court noted that, beginning in the quarter right after the merger agreement was announced, "Akorn's business performance fell off a cliff, delivering results that fell materially below Akorn's prior-year performance on a year-over-year basis," even though Akorn had re-affirmed its full-year earnings guidance at the time of announcement.
  2. The magnitude of Akorn's downturn - after considering expert testimony from both parties, the Court concluded that Akorn's financial performance had declined materially, with five consecutive quarters of double or triple digit, year-over-year declines in its revenue, operating income and earnings per share. Also, the Court noted that, in the five years ended 2016, Akorn had reported annual increases over the previous year's EBITDA of between 10% and 147%, as compared to a 55% decline in EBITDA for 2017 – which represented a "departure from its historical trend.
  3. The durational significance of Akorn's downturn - the Court found that the underlying causes of Akorn's decline went beyond a short-term hiccup in earnings and were material when company's overall earnings potential in a durationally-significant manner, noting that "[I]t has already persisted for a full year and shows no sign of abating." Additional support for that conclusion was found in analyst estimates that were published during the months following the announcement of the merger agreement, which had been revised downwards by double digits. As such, the Court concluded that the decline in Akorn's performance was "material when viewed from the longer-term perspective of a reasonable acquirer, which is measured in years."
  4. The disproportionate effect of industry headwinds on Akorn's downturn – the Court rejected Akorn's argument that its financial downturn was caused principally by "industry headwinds," including by a prevailing consolidation of buyer power and by the FDA's efforts to approve more generic drugs, resulting in lower prices. First, the Court found that the primary drivers of Akorn's dismal performance were internal and company-specific, which risks are allocated to the target in the MAE definition. Second, the Court found that, to the extent there were industry headwinds, Akorn suffered disproportionately, and systemic risks that have a disproportionate effect are likewise allocated to the target in the MAE definition. Specifically, the Court took note of expert evidence that showed that Akorn's percentage declines in reported quarterly EBITDA and analysts' forward EBITDA estimates were markedly sharper than the medium and mean of its peers.
  5. The qualitative harm done to Akorn's business as a result of its poor regulatory compliance, which was unknown to Fresenius when it signed the merger agreement. Qualitative harm changes the nature of what the buyer had agreed to buy. The Court, after noting that Akorn's compliance with the FDA's regulatory requirements was an "essential part of Akorn's business," found that, during the period following the signing of the merger agreement, "Akorn [had] gone from representing itself as an FDA-compliant company... to a company in persistent, serious violation of FDA requirements with a disastrous culture of non-compliance." Moreover, there was no quick fix for this qualitative harm: "The evidence at trial demonstrated that Akorn had pervasive regulatory issues that would take years to fix."

At first blush, the Delaware court's decision in Akorn might seem like a departure from its precedents. In two earlier prominent decisions, the Delaware Court had refused to sanction a buyer's termination of a merger agreement in purported reliance on MAC clauses:

  • In a 2001 decision, IBP v. Tyson Foods1, Tyson had attempted to terminate a US$1.6 billion merger with IBP because, after signing the merger agreement, IBP announced a 64% year-over-year drop in quarterly sales and a US$60 million accounting restatement due to a fraud uncovered in a subsidiary. The Court specified a three-part test for finding an MAE: (i) the occurrence of unknown events that (ii) substantially threaten the overall earnings potential (iii) in a durationally-significant manner. While accepting that Tyson had valid concerns about IBP's earnings prospects and management credibility, the Court declined to find that a MAC had occurred, in part because of Tyson's state of knowledge about the risks associated with IBP's business prior to signing the merger agreement, and because Tyson's public statements to analysts and the media to the effect that its motivation for acquiring IBP was driven more by a desire to achieve synergies than to benefit from IBP's expected financial performance. In the result, the Court concluded that the main reason for Tyson's desire to terminate the merger agreement was "buyer's regret," which was not sufficient to invoke a MAC clause.
  • In 2008, just as the world was starting to come to terms with the global financial crisis, a buyer tried terminating a merger agreement when the target company experienced consecutive quarters of poor financial performance, repeatedly missing the financial forecasts that it had shared during due diligence. In deciding Hexion Specialty Chemicals v. Huntsman2 against the buyer, the Court held that, because the target had specifically excluded the missed forecasts from its representations, the failure to achieve them could not constitute a MAE. Moreover, the Court stated that, to validly rely upon a MAC, the buyer must show that the adverse change "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." In the result, the Court concluded that a few awful quarters of financial performance was not sufficient to invoke a MAC clause.

At least arguably, the magnitude and duration of Akorn's post-announcement difficulties exceeded those of the target companies in both IBP and Huntsman. And, unlike the buyer in IBP, there was no evidence that the buyer in Akorn had any foreknowledge of those difficulties. Moreover, the potential long-term detrimental impact of Akorn's serious regulatory compliance issues appeared to exceed the likely duration of the challenges faced by the target companies in IBP and Huntsman. In addition, in Akorn, the court took notice that Fresenius was careful not to overreact to Akorn's deterioration and refrained from making any public (and few private) statements that were inconsistent with working towards completing the agreed transaction.

Conclusion

A conventional MAE clause does not typically offer the buyer a successful escape from a bad deal, but is instead used as leverage to renegotiate price. Several previous Delaware decisions had placed a heavy burden on buyers seeking to avoid a deal. Without an occasional win by a buyer on an MAE litigation, that leverage can wane. Akorn may have breathed new life into the leverage, but it would be wrong for buyers to take too much comfort from this decision. MAE litigation tends to be highly fact-specific, and the facts in Akorn were extraordinary.

Moreover, in Canada (in part because our securities regulators do not require parties to pre-clear proxy materials), we often close M&A transactions more quickly than in the United States. At the same time, our civil litigation process sometimes takes longer and an expedited application may afford less opportunity to surface extraordinary facts. Taken together, while a MAC clause does afford a bidder with more than theoretical leverage, these factors could make it more challenging for a bidder to demonstrate sufficient "durational significance" in a Canadian litigation.

Footnotes

1. 789 A.2d 14 (Del. Ch.)

2. 965 A.2d 715 (Del. Ch.)

To view original article, please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions