United States: Calling For Judicial/Legislative Intervention In Unwarranted M&A Shareholder Litigation

Last year, shareholders filed lawsuits challenging nearly 95% of public company M&A deals -- a new high (or low) water mark and the fourth consecutive year where more than 90% of these deals wound up in court. These lawyer-driven strike suits have become numbingly familiar, and predictably generic. Not only do nearly all M&A deals wind up in court, but(i) most attract hopelessly redundant, copy-cat lawsuits (on average, more than 5 per deal), typically in multiple jurisdictions (over 60% in 2013); (ii) virtually all these suits settle fast for supplemental "disclosures" of dubious value (over 90% before the deal closes), with virtually none providing monetary relief to shareholders (only 2% last year); and (iii) the plaintiffs' lawyers who bring these cases receive cash "fees" averaging about $500K a throw -- in marked contrast to the "clients" whom they claim to represent (and who, again, almost never see a dime).

The conventional wisdom is that the M&A strike suit has metastasized into a permanent "deal tax," whereby proxies are re-written, and plaintiffs' lawyers paid off, with constructive deal-makers walking away holding their noses. So pervasive is the M&A strike suit that smart D&O insurers have essentially carved them out from their policies by setting special, very high deductibles. At the same time, economic consulting firms are chronically publishing studies to remind us how bad the problem has gotten. But -- behind all these consistent and scary statistics-- there is reason to believe that this vexatious litigation will decline; that the trend will soon correct itself; and that sophisticated courts and legislators can, should, and will intervene.

For starters, the need for change could not be more apparent. It simply cannot be that more than 90% of M&A deals in America are the product of flawed processes supervised by derelict corporate directors who flout their fiduciary duties. In fact, it is hard to find even isolated examples of a successful court challenge to a legitimately lousy deal -- or even to lousy disclosures in a good deal. Of the hundreds of cases filed last year, not a single one survived long enough to go to trial. And of the few cases that didn't immediately settle, the plaintiffs lost every time on the merits. Pragmatic business people typically settle such "nuisance" suits simply because doing so is cheaper and less annoying than litigating them to a win -- not because anyone believes that directors have actually done anything wrong.

Nor do the "settlements" reached in these M&A cases provide meaningful economic benefit to shareholders or even some broader social benefit. Virtually none of these settlements (precisely 1 in the last two years) directly provide any "bump-up" on the deal price paid to investors, even though virtually all involve cash payments to the lawyers who filed the case -- an enormous red flag. Instead, settlements typically call for "supplemental disclosure" on the theory that shareholders with more information will be able to vote for or against the deal on a more informed basis. But that theoretical benefit does not match the facts: disclosure-only settlements have no statistically significant impact on the outcome of shareholder votes on mergers, an ugly truth laid bare by some top academics in a forthcoming study in the Texas Law Review. (Nor is there any statistically meaningful relationship between fee awards to plaintiffs' counsel and the outcome of shareholder votes.) Bottom line: a settlement does not yield any benefit to investors if all they get is "supplemental" disclosure of information that they already have, that is obvious, and/or that doesn't otherwise change anyone's views on the deal.

Courts plainly have become impatient with these manufactured lawsuits, and increasingly intolerant of settlements that do not actually "create value." In Delaware, the epicenter of this litigation, the Chancery Court has very recently dismissed several high-profile strike suits, including one challenging the merger between Ramtron International and Cypress Semi- conductor. Jettisoning the case as no more than "ubiquitous shareholder litigation that immediately follows the announcement of any public company merger," the Court made clear that plaintiffs' boilerplate accusations were a far cry from the "extreme set of facts" necessary to show that the target's directors had actually "conscious[ly] disregard[ed]" their duties. Likewise, the Chancery Court recently refused to approve a negotiated settlement of a strike suit filed against Medicis Pharmaceuticals -- even after all involved agreed to terms at arms' length -- because the supplemental disclosures demanded by the plaintiffs' lawyers did not "change the game" by providing their shareholder clients with any new and relevant information about the merger. For essentially public policy reasons, the Court simply couldn't place its imprimatur on a superficial settlement of a lawsuit that, if litigated in the real world, stood little chance of success.

Critically, the economic erosion of the M&A strike suit has already begun, even though we have not yet seen a drop in the number of cases filed. Last year, only two strike suits settled for over $5 million, compared to similarly trivial numbers in recent years (three in 2013, six in 2011, and five in 2010). The declining value of these cases is still more obvious from the fees sought by the attorneys who bring them. Plaintiffs' lawyers are now working harder (in relative terms) to justify their unjustifiable fees, and they are quietly discounting their demands. The average fees requested by plaintiffs' counsel in these cases dropped more than 20% last year, to $1.1 million in 2013 from $1.4 million in 2011 and 2012. And for settlements that only involved supplemental disclosure, rather than any monetary pay-out, the average fee requested in 2013 was only $500,000 -- a new nadir for the preceding five-year period. These data may be the best trend indicator yet that plaintiffs' attorneys themselves are acknowledging the falling value of their lawsuits.

There is reason to believe that heightened judicial scrutiny will portend reform that is broader and far more protective of honest dealmakers than just chipping away at the plaintiffs' lawyers' franchise one fee petition at time. In another recent case involving the sale of Theragenics Corp., the Chancery Court thoroughly interrogated the plaintiffs' lawyers on the basis for their fee request before rejecting the proposed settlement altogether. In doing so, the Court asked the very sort of questions that Congress mandated in 1995 to combat the similarly abusive practice of plaintiffs reflexively filing federal securities class actions against any public company that missed earnings, restated financials, or otherwise announced stock-dropping bad news.

Specifically, the Court inquired into (i) the economic stake the plaintiffs had in the company at the time they sued; (ii) how the plaintiffs connected with the lawyers who filed the case; and (iii) how many times those same lawyers had filed similar M&A lawsuits. Such questions are plainly designed to separate the (few) meritorious cases from the (many) invented by lawyers who sue in the name of puppet investors. And those questions are no less relevant in combating frivolous M&A cases today than the lawyer-driven federal securities class actions that required an Act of Congress in the 1990s.

In the final analysis, we are fast approaching the tipping point where many more courts will -- and legislators should -- put a fence around the barnyard. The reforms in federal securities litigation from the mid-1990s, echoed by the Chancery Court in Theragenics, provide a promising road map. But because these are state law cases in state courts, the business community must pick its shots by choosing the best places to press their advantage. The obvious targets reform are in the states that see the most filings (namely Delaware, New York, and California), as well as forums like Virginia where courts and elected officials are less gun-shy about stepping up to protect legitimate enterprise -- as opposed to the plaintiffs' lawyers who claim to speak for shareholders but, by and large, litigate for them- selves. It may be that reform already is inexorable, but the pace of the progress can only be accelerated by organized effort by business leaders.

Originally published by The Deal.

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
Jonathan A. Shapiro
 
In association with
Related Video
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Emails

From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.