Subscriber Content Preview | Request a free trialSearch  
  Go

The Deal Magazine

   Request magazine  |  Subscribe to newsletter
Print  |  Share  |  Discuss  |  Reprint

Chancellor Leo Strine tackles confis

by David Marcus  |  Published February 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM

strine227.jpgThe confidentiality agreement -- or confi -- is a ubiquitous part of M&A practice that generally attracts little attention. Companies sign confis to be able to exchange confidential information, which is often a first step toward a merger agreement. Confis limit ways in which companies may use information and may contain standstill provisions that bar hostile bids and other unwanted activities. Because they're usually signed at the start of talks and are, well, confidential, confis are subjected to much less analysis than merger agreements.

But confis figure prominently in two current takeover battles, offering a rare glimpse at the drafting issues such agreements raise. Especially important are their ability to limit one party from making an unwanted approach, behavior that many confis try to prevent with the inclusion of standstill provisions.

Two confis are at the center of the litigation before Delaware Chancellor Leo E. Strine Jr. arising from Martin Marietta Materials Inc.'s $4.9 billion bid for Vulcan Materials Co. The terms of a possible confi are also at issue in Westlake Chemical Corp.'s $1.2 billion unsolicited offer for Georgia Gulf Corp.

In the Vulcan case, the target argues that the confis signed in May 2010 should prevent Martin Marietta from making a hostile bid. The companies signed one agreement on May 3, and after realizing the antitrust hurdles to a deal might be significant, they signed another on May 18 that provided for sharing of information between not just the companies, but their outside lawyers. Delaware law governs both contracts, which have been disclosed in the litigation.

The uninvited
Hostile bids for U.S. companies
announcement date by year Deal value ($m) No. of deals successful percent successful
2000 $67,334 30 9 30%
2001 123,293 30 6 20
2002 25,097 36 15 42
2003 26,319 41 14 34
2004 88,183 28 7 25
2005 36,747 20 4 20
2006 125,136 39 10 26
2007 53,562 26 5 19
2008 221,993 34 7 21
2009 36,899 29 6 21
2010 81,853 24 7 29
2011 78,447 34 14 41
Source: Dealogic

Martin Marietta general counsel Roselyn Bar and her Vulcan counterpart, Robert A. Wason IV, signed both agreements. Martin Marietta's antitrust counsel, Raymond Jacobsen Jr. of McDermott Will & Emery LLP in Washington, and Vulcan's lawyer, Joseph Larson of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, signed the May 18 confi. Wachtell's Edward Herlihy and Igor Kirman, who in 2008 published a book on confis, are Vulcan's corporate lawyers, with William Savitt on litigation. (Standstill pacts are the subject of the longest section of Kirman's 108-page paperback.) Martin Marietta is using a team from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP led by Peter Atkins on corporate and Susan Saltzstein, Robert Zimet and Robert Saunders on litigation.

Martin Marietta and Wachtell emphasize different aspects of the agreements. The bidder notes that the May 3 agreement "does not contain a standstill provision prohibiting either party from making a public offer, or any agreement by Martin Marietta to limit its holdings of Vulcan's shares." Kirman's book contains a "typical seller-proposed standstill provision" with comments a prospective buyer is likely to have, and the May 3 agreement indeed does not contain any such clause. Martin Marietta also says it used only publicly available information, a claim Vulcan contests but which if found to be true would moot the issue.

Vulcan counters that the May 3 confi "prohibited disclosure of nonpublic information received from the other party, as well as the existence of the talks themselves, for a two-year period, and restricted the use of any information to that necessary to evaluate a consensual deal." The target advances a similar argument based on the May 18 agreement.

The dispute between Westlake and Georgia Gulf was focused on the drafting rather than interpretation of a confi before an unconventional move from Westlake on Feb. 1.Westlake wanted more information about Georgia Gulf before it hiked its bid. In exchange, Georgia Gulf wanted Westlake to sign a confi with a standstill that would have limited its ability to pursue a hostile bid. Five of the target's eight directors are up for election this spring, and Georgia Gulf reportedly served up a confi that in Westlake's view would have unreasonably limited its ability to talk to shareholders and win a proxy fight. But on Feb. 1, Westlake raised its bid from $30 to $35 a share and said it would not run a proxy fight because it wants to do a friendly deal. Maybe it will start with a confi.

David Marcus covers legal matters for The Deal magazine.

Share:
Tags: confi | confidentiality agreement | Delaware chancellor | Georgia Gulf Corp. | Leo E. Strine Jr. | Martin Marietta Materials Inc. | McDermott Will & Emery LLP | Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP | Vulcan Materials Co. | Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz | Westlake Chemical Corp.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Meet the journalists



Movers & Shakers

Launch Movers and shakers slideshow

NBGI Private Equity appointed food and drinks industry veteran Tim Kelly as a senior adviser. For other updates launch today's Movers & shakers slideshow.

Video

Shop, then chop

Blackstone Real Estate and DDR divide 46 shopping centers in a $1.46 billion deal. More video

Sectors