United States: It’s All About The Process: Lessons From Delaware Court On MLP’s Conflicts Committee Approval

Last Updated: April 29 2015
Article by David L. Ronn, Barbara S. de Marigny and Ryan E. Giggs

On April 20, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a post-trial opinion in the case In Re: El Paso Pipeline Partners L.P. (C.A. No. 7141-VCL), finding El Paso Pipeline GP Company LLC, the general partner (GP) of El Paso Pipeline Partners L.P. (MLP), liable for the MLP's overpayment of $171 million for certain assets purchased from its parent, El Paso Corporation (EP). The damages are significant, but the court's opinion is noteworthy for the lessons it offers with respect to the review and approval process for a transaction with a conflict of interest between a sponsor and a master limited partnership.

The case arose from two transactions completed between EP and the MLP in the spring and fall of 2010. In March 2010, EP sold 51 percent of its combined equity interests in Southern LNG Company L.L.C. (Southern I) and Elba Express L.L.C. (Elba) to the MLP for $963 million. Following that transaction, the MLP's units lost 3.6 percent of their value. In November 2010, EP sold the remaining 49 percent of Southern I and Elba along with 15 percent of Southern Natural Gas L.L.C. (Southern II) to the MLP for $1.4 billion. The MLP's units lost approximately 8 percent of their value after the second transaction.

The MLP's unitholders challenged both transactions, based on the failure to obtain approval in accordance with the MLP's limited partnership agreement leading to an overpayment by the MLP for the assets. The MLP's limited partnership agreement allowed the MLP to engage in conflict transactions with EP in certain circumstances, one of which was if the transaction received "special approval" from a conflicts committee comprised of independent members of the GP's board of directors (Committee). To grant special approval, the Committee's members had to believe in good faith that the transaction was in the best interests of the MLP.

The plaintiffs challenged the price paid for Southern I and Elba, but not the price paid for Southern II. In an earlier opinion released on June 2014, the court found no issue with the March 2010 transaction, but ordered a trial with respect to the November 2010 sale. After trial, the court held that the Committee could not have concluded in good faith that the November 2010 transaction was in the best interests of the MLP.

Turning to the issue of damages, based on evidence entered at trial related to multiples and discount rates similar to the March 2010 sale, the court concluded the MLP paid "at least" $931 million for the 49 percent of Southern I and Elba in the November 2010 sale. The court then considered expert testimony from both sides as to the total enterprise value of Southern I and Elba at the time of the fall transaction, and found plaintiffs' expert more convincing. Multiplying that expert's enterprise value of Southern I and Elba by 49 percent, and subtracting the result from the assumed $931 paid by the MLP, the court found that the MLP overpaid for the November 2010 assets by $171 million (an approximate 19 percent overpayment) and held the GP liable for that amount. No personal liability was imposed on the Committee's members or other members of the GP's board.

The court based its decision on four main factors:

  • The Committee's beliefs − Emails evidenced that the Committee expressed initial concerns that the November 2010 transaction did not make strategic sense for the MLP. However, the court found the Committee either ignored or rationalized away these concerns to appease EP.
  • Focus on accretion − The Committee granted special approval based largely on the belief that the November 2010 transaction would be accretive to distributions from the MLP, and not whether the purchase price represented overall value to the MLP.
  • Failure to improve negotiations − After the MLP's unit price fell following the March 2010 transaction, the Committee recognized that the MLP may have overpaid for the initial assets. However, rather than negotiating a better purchase price in the November 2010 sale, the Committee accepted the same high EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) multiple used in the March 2010 transaction. Furthermore, the Committee acquiesced to the application of that same multiple to all three of Southern I, Elba and Southern II, despite the fact that Southern II held an entirely different set of assets than did Southern I and Elba.
  • Failures of the financial advisor − The Committee's financial advisor did not value the November 2010 transaction independently from the March 2010 deal, but instead treated the November 2010 sale as a continuation of the first transaction. The court further found that the advisor was not consistent in its valuations of the assets. Finally, the court believed that the advisor manipulated its analysis to posture the November 2010 transaction in a more favorable light to increase the likelihood of closing.

In addition to these specific factors cited by the court, several additional considerations emerged from the court's opinion.

  • Independence of the Committee – The members of the Conflicts Committee met stock exchange independence standards, but two out of the three members of the Committee had meaningful individual ownership in EP and prior relationships to EP. This caused the court to remark that the "composition of the GP's Board reflected [EP's] control" of the MLP.
  • Retention of financial advisors – The court noted that the Committee interviewed several legal and financial advisors before its first drop down in 2008, but thereafter hired the same advisors "as a matter of course." In addition, the financial advisor's engagement letter provided that the advisor's fee would be contingent upon the issuance of a fairness opinion, which the court viewed as influencing the advisor's actions to achieve the result necessary to be paid.
  • Sponsor influence – Trial evidence showed that EP management had several conversations with the Committee's financial advisor that resulted in the advisor supporting EP management's proposals to the Committee. These conversations were never communicated to the Committee and influenced the way financial information was presented to the Committee. The court also noted that the transaction unfolded "almost exactly" on the schedule initially proposed by EP.
  • Records – During depositions, the Committee could not point to analysis of the transaction, but rather spoke in generalities. The Committee was unable to indicate that it had followed, or had recollection of, a specific process.

The court noted that mere bad business decisions would not have led to this result. However, the weight of the totality of the circumstances described above caused the court to react harshly.

Cumulatively, these factors provide useful insight into how other master limited partnerships can use the result from this case to improve upon their process to consider and approve drop-down transactions. These improvements include the following:

  • Transparency − A conflicts committee must be made aware of the material commercial terms of a transaction in detail. If a commercial term is used to support valuation, the committee must be able to understand how and why it is being used and its effect on the transaction. The financial advisor's work will be imputed to the committee, so both the advisor and the committee must seek out, understand and communicate details behind the various valuation methodologies. The sponsor should answer all questions from the committee and its advisors and timely provide all relevant information.
  • Records − Maintain detailed records of internal and external committee discussions. Not only may these records be useful for contemporaneous use, but they also could be admitted into evidence at trial to show due consideration of the issues by the committee. Eliminate or minimize private conversations between the sponsor and the committee's financial advisor. The committee should be reminded not to send emails to management on any topic during the review process. Although common sense, the committee should be reminded that typing an email is akin to plastering it on a billboard or posting it on a public blog. A better tactic is to ensure that all conversations, emails and information between the sponsor and the Committee or its advisors go through legal counsel who can keep a record of the exchanges and ensure the information is disseminated to the committee.
  • Valuation − Accretion should be just one factor, rather than the main focus, in determining overall valuation of the assets to be sold or contributed to the master limited partnership. All valuation methodologies must be explained to the committee's satisfaction. Disparate or unrelated assets that are included in the same transaction should be valued independently and subject to a separate fairness opinion, or at least a separate fairness statement in the same opinion, from the financial advisor.
  • Independence − If possible, provide separate internal and external negotiating teams for the sponsor and the master limited partnership on business, legal and financial issues. Consider whether members of the conflicts committee are truly independent from the sponsor. Although stock exchange rules on independence generally should be followed by a court, the more closely the committee members are tied to the sponsor, the more that factor can be perceived poorly in light of other missteps.
  • Financial Advisor − The financial advisor's fee should not be contingent on delivery of its fairness opinion and the same financial advisor should not be routinely hired for each deal. Engagements should be put out for bid to determine the best advisor for each transaction. Each advisor's independence should be reviewed for each deal and a statement of that independence should be included in the engagement letter.
  • Separation − The sponsor should not control or dictate the deal. The committee must have the time and resources to make informed decisions and both sponsor and master limited partnership should work to build a culture and process through which the committee is encouraged to assert itself when appropriate.

Most of the factors that influenced the court's decision in the El Paso case related to the failure of the Committee's process. It is important for a sponsor to understand that, although it controls its master limited partnership through a general partner, the sponsor still needs to ensure that the master limited partnership has the ability to make the right decision for itself and its unitholders. In light of a sponsor's control and the fact that usually all of the employees working on a deal (even if taking the side of the master limited partnership) are employees of the general partner, a sponsor's view of "fairness" to the master limited partnership should consider the degree by which the presumption for "fairness" should tilt toward the master limited partnership. By creating a fulsome process to allow a conflicts committee and its advisors to explore and understand the ramifications of a transaction, all parties will benefit from a better deal. Employing these lessons learned and process improvements certainly will not deter unitholder suits entirely, but a good process will provide a master limited partnership and its sponsor a better opportunity to minimize their risks in the event of a trial. At the end of the day, it's all about the process.

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
 
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
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