In a shareholder action claiming a target company's board breached its Revlon duties, Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons, Jr. of the Delaware Court of Chancery recently held the heightened standard of review under Revlon applied to a merger where shareholders were to receive 50 percent cash and 50 percent stock for their shares. In re Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. Shareholder Litigation, No. 6164-VCP (May 20, 2011). Although the Chancery Court went on to deny injunctive relief, the decision suggests that the Revlon standard may now apply to any merger of widely held companies involving a 50 percent or more cash payment to shareholders. This leaves open the question of whether a less substantial cash component would also be subject to the Revlon standard.
Background
The 50/50 cash/stock offer in Smurfit-Stone represented
a 27 percent premium to the target's prevailing trading price.
Under the proposal, Smurfit-Stone's stockholders would own 45
percent of the merged entity's outstanding common stock. The
merger agreement's deal protection provisions included standard
"no-shop" and "matching rights" clauses, and a
$120 million termination fee that amounted to 3.4 percent of the
transaction's equity value.
Plaintiffs claimed the Revlon standard applied because (a)
the stockholders would relinquish ownership of Smurfit-Stone in
favor of a minority stake in the merged entity and (b) the
offer's cash portion deprived stockholders of the potential to
share in all of the merged entity's future profits. Under the
Revlon standard, a board's actions are reviewed under
the heightened standard of reasonableness and not under the
deferential business judgment rule. In addition, when
Revlon applies, the fiduciary duty of a target board
shifts from acting in the best interests of the company to
obtaining the best value reasonably available for its
shareholders.
The shareholders also asserted that the Smurfit-Stone directors
breached their Revlon duties by failing to inform
themselves adequately about the market, agreeing to restrictive
deal protection provisions, permitting members of the Smurfit-Stone
management with conflicting interests to participate in the
negotiations, relying on an inexperienced financial advisor, and
accepting an inadequate price.
The Decision
As Vice Chancellor Parsons noted, a pure stock-for-stock merger
does not trigger the Revlon standard when the ownership
shifts from one large unaffiliated group of public shareholders to
another because there is no change of control. In an all-stock
transaction of this type where there is no resulting majority
shareholder, the target's stockholders are not relegated to
minority status and are able to participate fully in any future
success of the company and any future control premium should the
company be acquired later. Revlon does apply, however,
when stockholders receive only cash because they are foreclosed
from deriving any benefit from the merged entity's future
profits and will never obtain a control premium in a subsequent
transaction. Under settled Delaware law, however, Revlon
is not triggered simply because the transaction includes some cash.
In 1995, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that Revlon did
not apply to a 33 percent cash transaction. In re Santa Fe
Pacific Corp. Shareholder Litigation, 669 A.2d 59, 64-65, 71
(Del. 1995).
Acknowledging that it is unclear precisely when a mixed
stock-and-cash merger triggers Revlon, Vice Chancellor
Parsons held that Revlon did apply to a 50 percent cash
transaction. Noting that in In re Lukens Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, 757 A.2d 720, 732 (Del. Ch. 1999), then-Vice
Chancellor Stephen P. Lamb held that Revlon applied where
62 percent of the transaction was in cash, Vice Chancellor Parsons
stated that in a 50 percent cash transaction, there is similarly
"no tomorrow" for the cash received by a target's
shareholders. The Smurfit-Stone court went on to hold that
Revlon standards did apply, even in the absence of a
controlling shareholder in the new entity, because (a) the 50
percent portion of the stockholders' investment that was to be
cashed out was substantial, and (b) the transaction in question was
marginally closer to the Lukens 62 percent cash deal,
which was subject to Revlon, than to the Santa Fe
33 percent transaction, which was not. Still, the court
acknowledged that its "conclusion that Revlon applies
is not free from doubt."
Applying the Revlon standard to the facts before it, the
court concluded that the Smurfit-Stone board had not breached its
duties because it had been adequately informed about the market,
the deal protection clauses did not have a preclusive effect, the
board acted appropriately throughout the merger process, and the
plaintiffs had not shown that the price was inadequate. After
finding as well that the plaintiffs did not face irreparable harm
and that there was a danger that the stockholders could lose out on
the deal altogether, the court denied the request for a preliminary
injunction.
As a result of Smurfit-Stone, and notwithstanding the
criticism of some commentators that the analysis ignores prior
Delaware decisions finding that Revlon should be
inapplicable when control of the combined entity remains in the
hands of a fluid public market, it appears that a 50 percent or
more cash transaction may now trigger the Revlon standard
of review. Although there have been no Delaware cases addressing
the issue of whether Revlon applies to transactions with a
34 percent to 49 percent cash component, the absence of any logical
rationale for triggering Revlon at levels between 33
percent and 50 percent suggests that, if Smurfit-Stone
remains good law, a 50 percent cash proportion may ultimately be
the minimum at which Revlon is triggered. Given the
uncertainty in this area, however, we expect that practitioners
will continue to advise that a transaction could be subject to
Revlon unless the cash portion is 33 percent or less and
no other Revlon factors apply.
Other Matters
The decision also provides useful perspectives on a target company's shareholder duties in face of a merger offer. In rejecting the injunction, the court addressed a variety of the plaintiffs' claims for fiduciary breach and, among other things:
- The court reiterated that a target company has no specific duty to employ an auction or market check in a transaction subject to Revlon, nor any legal obligation to run a post-signing "go-shop" process in situations in which there is not a pre-signing market check.
- Although the court did not address the decision to form a special committee in response to potential management conflicts resulting from contractual officer payouts triggered by the transaction, this likely was a significant factor in the court's rejection of plaintiffs' argument that management was too heavily compromised to participate in the sales process.
These are important reminders that the analysis will, and
should, be driven by the facts and circumstances of the situation,
with a board's transaction process being the key.
You can download a copy of the full Smurfit-Stone opinion
by clicking 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.