United States: Changing Its Mind: A Board's Prerogative?

Under Delaware law, the board of directors of each company executing a merger agreement is required to adopt a resolution approving the merger agreement and declaring its advisability,1 although Delaware law also provides that a company may "agree to submit a matter to a vote of its stockholders whether or not the board of directors determines at any time subsequent to approving such matter that such matter is no longer advisable and recommends that the stockholders reject or vote against the matter."2 Further, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for transactions involving a tender offer or exchange offer, the target is required to file a Tender Offer Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9, disclosing the target board's position as to whether its stockholders should accept or reject the tender offer or defer making a determination regarding such offer.3

The terms of public company merger agreements typically require the target's board of directors to recommend that its stockholders either vote in favor of the proposed merger or tender their shares into the tender offer or exchange offer, as applicable, and contain limitations on the target board's ability to subsequently withdraw or qualify its recommendation. The merger agreement will, however, typically have exceptions, referred to as "fiduciary outs," that permit the board to change its recommendation in certain circumstances. Although market practice, as well as Delaware case law, supports the view that some restrictions on a target board's ability to change its recommendation are consistent with directors' discharge of their fiduciary duties—including the board's disclosure obligations under Delaware's duty of candor— the scope of those permissible restrictions will depend on the particular terms (and other relevant facts and circumstances) of each transaction. Market practice in this regard has also evolved over the last several years, particularly with respect to the introduction, and then increasing use, of a so-called "intervening event" (discussed below) as a trigger for a board's ability to change its recommendation.

Delaware courts have not expressly stated whether a board's recommendation to its stockholders is, in itself, a fact that falls within the requirements of the duty of candor, although evolving Delaware case law suggests that restrictions on a board's ability to change its recommendation could implicate that duty. As described in Lynch v. Vickers Energy Corp.,4 the duty of candor (also referred to as the duty of disclosure) is a fiduciary duty owed by a board to its stockholders requiring '' 'complete candor' in disclosing fully 'all the facts and circumstances surrounding the' transaction," though later, in Stroud v. Grace,5 the Delaware Supreme Court clarified that the board's disclosure obligations are limited to disclosure of material facts. A board's obligation to comply with the requirements of the duty of candor applies in all transactions in which stockholder action is sought, regardless of the structure of the transaction.

In Malone v. Brincat,6 the Delaware Supreme Court found the disclosure requirements under the duty of candor to be broad enough to require a board to disclose to its stockholders its honest view about a transaction, stating that "[w]henever directors communicate publicly or directly with shareholders about the corporation's affairs, with or without a request for shareholder action, directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to exercise due care, good faith and loyalty. It follows a fortiori that when directors communicate publicly or directly with shareholders about corporate matters the sine qua non of directors' fiduciary duty to shareholders is honesty."

Delaware case law further suggests that the duty of candor may impose limitations on permissible terms of a merger agreement. As the Delaware Chancery Court stated in Energy Partners v. Stone Energy, there are ". . .legal constraints on contractual attempts to circumscribe the ability of directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties."7 Moreover, in Frontier v. Holly, in finding that a board's change of recommendation of a merger agreement did not amount to repudiation, the Delaware Chancery Court held that a board's ongoing obligation to assess its support of a transaction "was not merely something that the Merger Agreement allowed the Holly Board to do; it was the duty of the Holly Board to review the transaction to confirm that a favorable recommendation would continue to be consistent with its fiduciary duties."8

The broadest formulation of a fiduciary out—one that clearly does not facially conflict with a target board's fiduciary duty of candor—permits the board to change its recommendation following its determination that it is required to change its recommendation to comply with its fiduciary duties, typically subject to the board's having first consulted with its external legal and financial advisors. However, parties to a merger agreement often agree to narrower fiduciary outs that leave open the possibility that a target board will determine that it should change its recommendation in respect of a transaction, but is contractually restrained from doing so because the underlying reason for the board's determination does not fall within the scope of the fiduciary out triggers agreed in the merger agreement.

One of the more restrictive formulations of a fiduciary out clause limits the board's ability to change its recommendation to circumstances where an alternate transaction proposal has been received that the board determines is a superior proposal. Exercise of this right is typically subject to satisfaction of certain criteria, including requiring the board to have consulted with its external legal and financial advisors, and having evaluated the financial terms, likelihood of consummation, other legal and regulatory aspects of the alternate proposal, and any consequential changes to the terms of the executed merger agreement that are proposed by the counterparty to the merger agreement in response to the alternate proposal. Despite the relative lack of flexibility that this formulation affords directors to exercise and discharge their duty of candor, it has historically been a common approach and is still invoked today, although sparingly.

In the middle of the spectrum, a formulation that has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, as part of a limited fiduciary out, is to allow a target board to change its recommendation either in response to a superior proposal or when an "intervening event" is deemed to have occurred, often defined as a material event not known or foreseeable at the time of the execution of the merger agreement. Intervening event definitions differ in breadth. An intervening event definition may exclude events known or reasonably foreseeable by a target before the signing date, varying as to the extent to which unknown events, or unforeseeable consequences of known events, are included within the definition. The more flexibility that an intervening event definition affords to a board to change its recommendation, the more likely it is that this formulation will not result in a conflict with the directors' fiduciary duty of candor.

Target companies are continuing to agree to restrictions on the ability of their board to change its recommendation. Upon review of the terms of 81 public merger agreements governed by Delaware law signed from July 1, 2014 to July 21, 2015, and valued at over $1 billion,9 59 (or 73%) of the transactions limited the ability for a board to change its recommendation to circumstances in which the target receives a superior proposal or in which an intervening event occurs, and another four (or 5%) of the transactions limited the ability for a board to change its recommendation only to circumstances in which the target receives a superior proposal. Only 17 (or 21%) of the transactions provided for a broad fiduciary out that may be exercised upon a determination by a target board that not changing its recommendation would be inconsistent with its fiduciary duties. For one transaction involving an all-stock combination of two affiliated parties, the merger agreement provided for no fiduciary out. In light of these findings, it appears that target companies and their advisors typically allow some restrictions on a board's ability to change its recommendation.

As mentioned above, Delaware courts have not directly addressed the extent to which restrictions agreed between parties to a merger agreement that limit a target board's ability to change its recommendation are inconsistent with directors' fiduciary duties. However, there is some commentary in the public domain that may be instructive. For example, at a 2009 panel discussion at the Tulane Corporate Law Institute at which restrictions on a target board's ability to change its recommendation were discussed, Leo Strine (now Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, but then-Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery) was reported in the media to be "openly skeptical" of whether certain restrictions would be consistent with Delaware law.10

More recently, in In re NYSE Euronext Shareholders Litigation, then-Chancellor Strine of the Delaware Court of Chancery, in a bench ruling following oral argument, declined to issue a preliminary injunction on a stockholder vote to approve the proposed merger between NYSE Euronext ("NYSE Euronext") and IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. ("ICE"). While noting that the definition of "superior proposal" in the merger agreement would have excluded a hypothetical alternate transaction proposal from a bidder who sought to acquire discrete businesses of NYSE Euronext, then- Chancellor Strine stated that he shared the plaintiffs' skepticism that "contractual promises to lie in the future have any real commercial utility."11

However, then-Chancellor Strine's further comments during his bench ruling in denying an injunction for the NYSE Euronext and ICE merger acknowledged that "the board's decision, in terms of its fiduciary judgment in dealing with a contract, can't be just isolated provision by provision." In other words, restrictions on a board's ability to change its recommendation that are agreed between parties, notwithstanding any potential conflict with the exercise of a board's duty of candor, would be viewed as one aspect of a broader review of the terms of the merger agreement and the transaction process. Despite case law suggesting that restrictions on a board's ability to change its recommendation may conflict with the requirements of the duty of candor, a court could conclude that a board properly accepted restrictions on its ability to change its recommendation as part of an overall transaction process that resulted in the best deal reasonably available for its stockholders, finding that the benefits gained in exchange for agreeing to the limitation outweigh the restrictions imposed on the board limiting its freedom to change its recommendation.

This approach is consistent with the case-by-case approach taken by Delaware courts. As articulated by then-Chancellor Strine during his In re Ancestry.com bench ruling, holding that a "don't ask, don't waive" standstill provision cannot be held to be per se unlawful, "[p]er se rulings where judges invalidate contractual provisions across the bar are exceedingly rare in Delaware, and they should be. It's inconsistent with the model of our law. . .This Court is a court of equity. . . And it's usually for the Legislature to determine when something is per se unlawful."12

Although there is some lack of clarity on the scope of permissible restrictions on a target board's ability to change its recommendation in respect of a pending transaction (in terms of both such restrictions, as well as the quantum of "termination fees" that may be payable by the target following a change in target board recommendation that is not connected to target's receipt of a superior proposal), it is clear that transaction participants and advisors should approach this issue carefully with the goal of crafting provisions that are appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of the particular transaction, as well as the other terms of the merger agreement.


1 Section 251(b) of the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL").

2 Section 146 of the DGCL.

3 Schedule 14D-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14d-101.

4 Lynch v. Vickers Energy Corp., 383 A.2d 278 (Del. 1977).

5 Stroud v. Grace, 606 A.2d 75, 85 (Del.1992).

6 Malone v. Brincat, 722 A.2d 5, 11 (Del. 1998).

7 Energy Partners, Ltd. v. Stone Energy Corp., C.A. No. 2402-N (Del. Ch. Oct. 11, 2006).

8 Frontier Oil Corp. v. Holly Corp., C.A. No. 20502 (Del. Ch. Apr. 29, 2005).

9 Practical Law database, accessed July 2015.

10 "Deal Lawyers Are Getting Creative," Steven Davido_ Solomon, New York Times, April 14, 2009, available at http://dealbook.nytimes.com//2009/04/ 14/deal-lawyers-start-getting-creative/.

11 In re NYSE Euronext Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 8136-CS (Del. Ch. May 10, 2013) (transcript).

12 In re Ancestry.com Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 7988-CS (Del. Ch. Dec. 17, 2012) (transcript).

Previously published in the July/August issue of The M&A Lawyer.

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.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.