Delaware Supreme Court Affirms NOL Poison Pill Under Unocal
|
|
- Cameron Reynolds
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 October 2010 Delaware Supreme Court Affirms NOL Poison Pill Under Unocal BY CLAUDIA K. SIMON AND ELIZABETH A. RAZZANO On October 4, 2010, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery s decision in Selectica Inc. v. Versata Enterprises, Inc. and Trilogy, Inc., 1 which upheld the use of a shareholder rights plan with a 4.99% ownership trigger designed to protect the corporation s ability to utilize its net operating losses (NOLs) in response to an ownership change under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code. 2 This case is important in that the Delaware courts address for the first time the actual use of an NOL rights plan. Applying the standard under Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 3 the Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery Court s conclusion that the protection of company NOLs may be an appropriate corporate policy meriting a defensive response when threatened. 4 The Supreme Court noted that while Selectica s NOL rights plan was reasonable under the particular facts and circumstances, the decision was not an affirmation that a 4.99% ownership trigger was, in and of itself, reasonable and that a particular response to a takeover bid would be judged by the actions of the board at that time. Background Selectica is a microcap enterprise software company that had accumulated approximately $160 million in NOLs by the end of December In 2006, Selectica retained outside tax advisors and accountants to evaluate its NOLs and determine whether they were subject to any limitations under Section 382. Selectica s accountant, who specialized in NOL calculations, conducted an analysis of Selectica s NOLs, including the then-current valuation of the NOLs and an examination of whether Selectica had undergone a Section 382 ownership change since The accountant provided the board with his written report, which was periodically updated in the following years. Selectica and Trilogy, a private company and long-time competitor of Selectica s, had a contentious relationship going back to April Trilogy had sued Selectica twice for patent infringement, questioned Selectica about its option backdating practices and had made two offers to acquire some or all of Selectica s business, both of which were rejected. Upon rejection of the second offer to buy Selectica in October 2008, Trilogy began acquiring shares of Selectica and, in November 2008, notified Selectica that it had acquired more than 5% of Selectica s outstanding shares. In light of the notice it received from Trilogy, Selectica s board met to determine the impact of Trilogy s ownership interest on Selectica s ability to utilize its NOLs. Present at the meeting were Selectica s legal counsel, tax advisors, bankers and the accountant responsible for evaluating and 1 1
2 reporting on the NOLs. An updated analysis of the NOLs indicated that over the past three years, 5%- and-greater shareholders had accumulated approximately 40% of Selectica s outstanding shares, putting the company at significant risk of an ownership change which would impair its ability to utilize its NOLs. The board considered various alternatives, including an amendment to Selectica s existing shareholder rights plan and possible strategic transactions, and decided to amend Selectica s shareholder rights plan to reduce the triggering threshold from 15% to 4.99% (NOL Pill), while grandfathering in existing 5%-and-greater shareholders and permitting them to acquire up to an additional 0.5% without triggering the pill. The board also appointed an independent committee to periodically review the NOL Pill, the appropriate trigger percentage, and whether such plan continued to be in the best interests of the corporation and its stockholders. In mid-december 2008, Trilogy intentionally bought additional shares of Selectica, thereby knowingly triggering the NOL Pill and became an acquiring person under the rights plan. Selectica then brought an action in the Court of Chancery seeking declaratory judgment to confirm the validity of its NOL Pill. Under the terms of the NOL Pill, the Selectica board could exempt Trilogy from the effects of the NOL Pill if it determined that Trilogy would not jeopardize or endanger the availability to Selectica of the NOLs. If the board did not exempt Trilogy, the NOL Pill would, under its terms, automatically flip-in, unless the board took affirmative action to implement the dilutive exchange provision of the NOL Pill. In January 2009, the independent committee of the board, after discussions with financial and legal advisors and three failed attempts to enter into a standstill agreement with Trilogy, determined that Trilogy would not be exempted from application of the NOL Pill and that an exchange of rights for common stock should occur. In addition, because the rights, once exchanged, would no longer protect Selectica or its NOLs, the independent committee also declared a new dividend of rights to all stockholders on terms similar to the then-existing NOL Pill (Reload Pill). Upon implementation of the share exchange, Trilogy s ownership dropped from 6.7% to 3.3%. Selectica thereafter amended its complaint to seek declaratory relief as to the validity of the share exchange and the Reload Pill. Trilogy counterclaimed, seeking invalidation of those actions on legal and equitable grounds, including on the grounds that a 4.99% trigger was per se invalid. The Chancery Court s Evaluation of the Selectica Board s Actions Under Unocal The Chancery Court evaluated the board s actions under the two-part test set forth in Unocal, which requires that a board adopting defensive measures show that (i) it had reasonable grounds for concluding that a threat to a corporate objective existed, satisfied by a showing of good faith and reasonable investigation, and (ii) its response was reasonable in relation to the threat posed, reasonableness being measured by whether the defensive measure was coercive or preclusive. Existence of a Threat In applying Unocal, the court first considered whether the preservation of NOLs was a valid corporate objective. Trilogy argued that NOLs could not be viewed as assets worthy of protection absent a reasonable expectation of their probable future use. The Chancery Court noted that sanctioning lowthreshold shareholder rights plans, or poison pills, could have the effect of guaranteeing the somewhat unpalatable outcome of acquiescing to the expansion of the universe of reasonable takeover defenses in order to protect assets of questionable, even dubious, value. 5 However, based on expert testimony, the Chancery Court also noted that, although the value of NOLs is inherently 2 2
3 unknowable ex ante, a board may properly conclude that the company s NOLs are worth protecting where it does so reasonably and in reliance upon expert advice. 6 In light of the fact that the board had received advice from advisors with substantial experience in valuing NOLs, the Chancery Court concluded that the protection of NOLs may be an appropriate corporate objective warranting a defensive response when threatened and was satisfied that the directors had acted reasonably in determining that the NOLs were worth preserving and that Trilogy s actions were a serious threat to Selectica s ability to utilize its NOLs. Reasonable Response Under the second prong of Unocal, the Chancery Court considered whether the actions of the Selectica board were reasonable in relation to the threat posed. Under Unitrin, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Corp., 7 a defensive measure is unreasonable if it is either coercive or preclusive. Trilogy argued that the NOL Pill was preclusive because the low trigger threshold made the possibility of an effective proxy contest realistically unattainable by preventing it from accumulating enough shares to establish credibility, especially when coupled with a classified board. Relying in part on a proxy solicitor s testimony that several shareholders had successfully obtained board seats in proxy contests where such shareholders held 5.5% or less of the subject company s outstanding shares, and where the subject company had a classified board, the Chancery Court found that the low trigger threshold of the NOL Pill and the Reload Pill were not preclusive because they did not render a successful proxy contest a near impossibility or else utterly moot. 8 Upon determining that the NOL Pill and the Reload Pill were not preclusive, the Chancery Court then considered whether the board s actions fell within a range of reasonableness as related to the specific threat of NOL impairment. The Chancery Court reviewed the board s decision-making processes as a whole, including the board s internal debates regarding responsive actions, consideration of the impact on shareholders, establishment of an independent committee, and ultimately its decision to adopt the NOL Pill, implement the less dilutive share exchange instead of the flip-in feature of the pill, and adopt the Reload Pill. In balancing the board s actions against the backdrop of the parties contentious relationship, Trilogy s intentional attempt to impair the NOLs or coerce the company into meeting its demands and Trilogy s refusal to enter into a standstill agreement, the Chancery Court found that the combination of the NOL Pill, the share exchange and the Reload Pill was a proportionate response to the threatened impairment of Selectica s NOLs. Trilogy appealed. Summary of the Supreme Court s Holding The Supreme Court, in Versata Enterprises, Inc. and Trilogy, Inc. v. Selectica, Inc., affirmed the Chancery Court s finding that protection of NOLs may be an appropriate corporate policy worthy of defensive action when threatened and held that Selectica s board had shown it had reasonable grounds to believe Selectica s NOLs were in danger of impairment as a result of Trilogy s stock ownership. With respect to the issue of preclusiveness, and in response to Trilogy s argument that the NOL Pill coupled with a classified board is preclusive, the Supreme Court noted that simply because a combination of defensive measures makes it more difficult for an acquiror to gain control of a corporation, such measures are not automatically preclusive and held that the combination of the NOL Pill with a classified board did not constitute a preclusive defense. The description of the preclusive standard used by both the Chancery Court and the Supreme Court in this matter sets a particularly high standard for invoking the preclusive prong of Unocal. 3 3
4 On the final issue of reasonableness, the Supreme Court held that the adoption of the NOL Pill, implementation of the share exchange and adoption of the Reload Pill was a proportionate response to the threat to Selectica s NOLs. The Supreme Court noted that (i) adoption of the NOL Pill was reasonable in light of the three failed attempts to negotiate with Trilogy, (ii) the share exchange was a more proportionate response because it resulted in less dilution than the flip-in mechanism of the NOL Pill, and (iii) the Reload Pill was a necessary measure because even though the NOL Pill and share exchange had hampered the immediate threat to Selectica s NOLs, it did not eliminate the general threat of an ownership change under Section 382 because a 40% ownership change still existed and without the Reload Pill there was nothing to discourage additional acquisitions by 5%-and-greater shareholders. The Supreme Court cautioned that this case should not be construed as generally approving the reasonableness of a 4.99% trigger in the rights plans of a corporation with or without NOLs 9 and that any decision by Selectica s board to continue to use the Reload Pill would be held to the same fiduciary standards any other board of directors would be held to in deciding to adopt a defensive mechanism. 10 The Future of NOL Rights Plans Whether NOL rights plans will become commonplace remains to be seen, but the Selectica decision opens the door for more companies to use these plans to protect specific threats to their NOLs. As of October 7, 2010, approximately 45 companies had implemented NOL rights plans 11 (more recently referred to as Tax Benefit Preservation Plans), including Autobytel Inc., Citigroup, Inc., Deerfield Capital Corp., Hovnanian Enterprises Inc., Leap Wireless, Kana Software, Inc., and KB Home. Of these 45 plans, eight were adopted following the initial Selectica decision in February Additionally, RiskMetrics Group has indicated that it will consider NOL rights plans on a case-by-case basis, considering the threshold trigger, value of the tax assets, existing corporate governance structure, term of the plan and shareholder protection mechanisms. 12 Advice for Corporations Considering NOL Rights Plans Corporations considering NOL rights plans should consider the following: The Evaluation Process. In Selectica, it was of significant importance that the board had been proactive in its review and analyses of its NOLs, had established an independent committee to periodically review its rights plan to determine whether it continued to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders, and had relied on the counsel of outside advisors, expert in their field, when considering the value of its NOLs. Outside advisors should be providing boards with complete and thorough written analyses or reports and not high-level summaries or cursory reviews. The use of outside independent directors can materially enhance the showing of the board s good faith and reasonable investigation, and when coupled with reliance on the advice of outside advisors constitutes a prima facie showing of good faith and reasonable investigation. 13 Evaluate the Potential Threat and Reasonableness of Response. Boards considering NOL poison pills must evaluate their current risk of an ownership change under Section 382, the likelihood that such change may occur, and the impact such change would have on the corporation s ability to use its NOLs. In the face of a threat, consider other options, such as 4 4
5 standstill agreements or share exchanges. Selectica s attempts to secure standstill agreements from Trilogy and Trilogy s continued refusal to enter into such agreements weighed in Selectica s favor. Additionally, both the Chancery Court and Supreme Court looked favorably upon Selectica s decision to utilize the less dilutive share exchange. An exchange feature has advantages over the flip-in feature because it causes less dilution, the extent of the dilution is certain and automatic, and the exchange feature has a cashless exercise. The dilutive certainty of the exchange feature allows companies to more easily determine ownership percentage changes and the potential impact on the NOL assets, whereas with a flip-in not all stockholders may exercise their rights, resulting in an inadvertent increase in the ownership percentages of those shareholders who do exercise their rights. Implement a pre-approval process and eliminate post-trigger waivers. Often NOL poison pills allow the board, under certain circumstances, to waive the trigger threshold after it has been exceeded. These post-trigger waivers may make a board more susceptible to pressure from the aquiror, result in litigation, and once the threshold is crossed the NOL asset is damaged. By eliminating post-trigger waivers, potential acquirors may be more incentivized to seek a waiver from the board in advance of any triggering acquisition, which also allows the board to consider the request for such waiver without undue pressure. Limited Deterrent Effect. Lower trigger thresholds and depressed stock prices may not have the deterrent effect of traditional poison pills. Because the trigger threshold is low, acquirors may be more willing to trip an NOL poison pill because the potential dilution is not as great, especially in situations where the target company s stock price is very low (as was the case in Selectica at $1.00 per share). Additionally, the costs to the company of a poison pill trigger could exceed the costs to the acquiror. If an acquiror decides to trigger a poison pill, the company s board should be prepared to adopt a new poison pill immediately to maintain the protection sought to be obtained by triggered poison pill. Conclusion Selectica is another reminder for boards to lay their groundwork. The Selectica board met often and established a record attributing value to the NOLs and that it was responding to what it perceived to be a legitimate threat to corporate policy and effectiveness after taking advice from experts. The opinion underlines the importance of using expert advisers where a board considers adopting or amending any defensive measures. The case also demonstrates the willingness of the Delaware courts to consider and validate new parameters for defensive tactics in response to unique corporate threats. Selectica may open the door for companies to test other forms of shareholder rights plans, including those that capture derivatives or synthetic long positions, which have not yet been tested in the Delaware courts. 5 5
6 If you have any questions concerning these developing issues, please do not hesitate to contact any of the following Paul Hastings lawyers: Atlanta Erik L. Belenky Chicago Thaddeus (Thad) J. Malik Los Angeles Robert A. Miller New York Kevin Logue San Diego Carl R. Sanchez Claudia Simon Elizabeth A. Razzano C.A. No VCN, 2010 WL (Del.Ch. Feb. 26, 2010). 2 Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (Section 382), generally limits a corporation s ability to utilize its NOLs against future or immediate past taxable income when the corporation undergoes an ownership change. An ownership change occurs when there is a greater than 50% increase in ownership of the corporation by 5%-and-greater shareholders in any three year period. NOLs can have substantial value if a corporation becomes profitable or merges with a profitable corporation. However, they can become markedly less valuable upon an ownership change and therefore companies use NOL rights plans to protect their NOL carry-forwards against the threat that changes in ownership could inadvertently limit the company s ability to use the NOLs to reduce future income taxes A.2d 946 (Del. 1985). 4 Versata Enterprises, Inc. and Trilogy, Inc. v. Selectica, Inc., 2010 WL at *12 (Del. October 4, 2010). 5 Selectica, 2010 WL at *15. 6 Id A.2d 1361 (Del. 1995). 8 Selectica, 2010 WL at *21. 9 Versata, 2010 WL at * Id US Sustainability Proxy Voting Guidelines, 13 Selectica, at * Offices Worldwide Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP StayCurrent is published solely for the interests of friends and clients of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP and should in no way be relied upon or construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this publication reflect those of the authors and not necessarily the views of Paul Hastings. For specific information on recent developments or particular factual situations, the opinion of legal counsel should be sought. These materials may be considered ATTORNEY ADVERTISING in some jurisdictions. Paul Hastings is a limited liability partnership. Copyright 2010 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As required by U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice, you are hereby advised that any written tax advice contained herein or attached was not written or intended to be used (and cannot be used) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. 6 6
Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Validity of "NOL" Rights Plan
Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Validity of "NOL" Rights Plan But Cautions That, Under a Unocal Analysis, "Context Determines Reasonableness" By Robert Reder, Alison Fraser and Josh Weiss of Milbank, Tweed,
Selectica v. Versata: Delaware Chancery Court Upholds Poison Pill Shareholder Rights Plan with 4.99% Triggering Threshold Designed to Protect NOLs
March 2010 Selectica v. Versata: Delaware Chancery Court Upholds Poison Pill Shareholder Rights Plan with 4.99% Triggering Threshold Designed to Protect NOLs COURT ACKNOWLEDGES RISK OF LOSING COMPANY S
Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Net Operating Loss Poison Pill
Legal Update October 11, 2010 Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Net Operating Loss Poison Pill In Versata Enterprises Inc. v. Selectica, Inc., No. 193, 2010 (Del. Oct. 4, 2010), the Delaware Supreme Court
Delaware Court Applies Revlon To Hybrid Merger And Provides Guidance
June 2011 Delaware Court Applies Revlon To Hybrid Merger And Provides Guidance BY PETER TENNYSON & JAMES HERRIOTT The Delaware Court of Chancery on May 20 rejected a challenge to the merger of Smurfit-Stone
The Rise of Nanny Corporations
March 3, 2011 The Rise of Nanny Corporations Author: David M. Grinberg This article was originally published in the February 25, 2011 issues of the Los Angeles Daily Journal and San Francisco Daily Journal
Expatriation Pursuant to the Heroes Act
August 2008 Expatriation Pursuant to the Heroes Act BY MICHAEL D. HAUN AND ERIC W. ENSMINGER Introduction On May 20, 2008 and May 22, 2008, the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, unanimously
The New York WARN Act
August 2008 The New York WARN Act BY ALLAN S. BLOOM, STEPHEN H. HARRIS, ETHAN LIPSIG AND GLENN S. GRINDLINGER On August 5, 2008, Governor David Patterson signed legislation enacting the New York State
Certain Shelf Registration Statements Are Scheduled to Expire Beginning December 1, 2008
October 2008 Certain Shelf Registration Statements Are Scheduled to Expire Beginning December 1, 2008 BY TERI O BRIEN As part of the Securities Offering Reforms adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission
Europe s Emerging Bad Banks : Opportunities for Investors
July 2009 Europe s Emerging Bad Banks : Opportunities for Investors BY CONOR DOWNEY, ALBERTO DEL DIN, HERGEN HAAS AND DAVID LACAZE Across Europe governments are establishing so-called bad banks to assist
Overview of Recent Department of Labor ERISA Service Provider Fee Disclosure Initiatives
August 2008 Overview of Recent Department of Labor ERISA Service Provider Fee Disclosure Initiatives BY KRISTIN CHAPMAN, STEVE HARRIS, ERIC KELLER AND JOSH STERNOFF 401(k) and other plan fiduciaries are
Numerous Proposed 2009 Amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law Reflect Heightened Focus on Governance Issues
ClientAdvisory Numerous Proposed 2009 Amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law Reflect Heightened Focus on Governance Issues March 10, 2009 Lawmakers in the state of Delaware may soon be addressing
SEC Modifies Conditions Relating to Section 19(b) Exemptive Order Applications
May 2007 SEC Modifies Conditions Relating to Section 19(b) Exemptive Order Applications From the Investment Management Practice Group I. INTRODUCTION In October 2006 the Division of Investment Management
Congress Passes Tax Legislation Affecting Regulated Investment Companies
December 2010 Congress Passes Tax Legislation Affecting Regulated Investment Companies BY JOSEPH P. OPICH, MARCIA PERSAUD & MATT WALDING TABLE OF CONTENTS Changes in Tax Law for RICs... 2 I. Repeal of
SEC Adopts New Brochure Requirement for Registered Advisers
August 2010 SEC Adopts New Brochure Requirement for Registered Advisers BY THE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE 1. Overview The Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) has adopted long-awaited amendments
SEC FORMALIZES ITS POSITION ON PIPE TRANSACTIONS
June 2007 SEC FORMALIZES ITS POSITION ON PIPE TRANSACTIONS By Jeffrey T. Hartlin, Elizabeth A. Brower and Michael L. Zuppone Private investment in public equity offerings, labeled PIPEs by market participants,
OCC Extends Comment Period on Deposit-Related Consumer Credit Products
July 2011 OCC Extends Comment Period on Deposit-Related Consumer Credit Products BY KEVIN L. PETRASIC In a proposal published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2011, the Office of the Comptroller of the
IN THE FACE OF AN UNSOLICITED BID
IN THE FACE OF AN UNSOLICITED BID Given the significant decline in share prices, hostile bids are on the rise. At the same time, many companies are under increased pressure from shareholder activists to
Treasury Issues Proposed Regulations Expanding the Definition of Publicly Traded Property
February 0 Treasury Issues Proposed Regulations Expanding the Definition of Publicly Traded Property BY ANDREW M. SHORT & MATTHEW G. BRIGHAM On January 6, 0, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue
Selectica, Inc. v. Versata Enterprises, Inc: A Case Study on the Use (and Usefulness) of Experts in Delaware Corporate Litigation
Selectica, Inc. v. Versata Enterprises, Inc: A Case Study on the Use (and Usefulness) of Experts in Delaware Corporate Litigation By Jonathan S. Kitchen Gregory V. Varallo Margot F. Alicks This article
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Conducting First Carbon Dioxide Allowance Auction
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Conducting First Carbon Dioxide Allowance Auction BY LISA K. RUSHTON AND JEFF ALLMON Taking another key step toward becoming the first domestic mandatory program
SEC Takes Steps to Reduce Reliance on Credit Ratings
October 2009 SEC Takes Steps to Reduce Reliance on Credit Ratings Funds must revise their Rule 10f-3 procedures by November 12, 2009 FROM THE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE Effective November 12, 2009,
Recent Developments in Delaware Corporate Law. Marcus J. Williams March 9, 2011
Recent Developments in Delaware Corporate Law Marcus J. Williams March 9, 2011 Presentation Overview Board of Directors and Governance Issues Relations with Securityholders Business Combinations Board
Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re School Specialty Affirms Lender s Ability to Recover 37% Make-Whole Premium as Part of its Secured Claim
April 2013 Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re School Specialty Affirms Lender s Ability to Recover 37% Make-Whole Premium as Part of its Secured Claim I. Introduction On April 22, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy
Making Good Use of Special Committees
View the online version at http://us.practicallaw.com/3-502-5942 Making Good Use of Special Committees FRANK AQUILA AND SAMANTHA LIPTON, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, WITH PRACTICAL LAW CORPORATE & SECURITIES
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Affiliate Transaction and Insider Lending Restrictions
July 2010 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Affiliate Transaction and Insider Lending Restrictions BY KEVIN L. PETRASIC Introduction The recently enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street
SEC Proposes New Exchange-Traded Fund and Fund of Funds Rules
April 2008 SEC Proposes New Exchange-Traded Fund and Fund of Funds Rules From the Investment Management Practice Group The Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC or Commission ) recently proposed
Hostile Takeover Defenses: Recent Decisions Evaluating and Structuring Anti Takeover Strategies
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Hostile Takeover Defenses: Recent Decisions Evaluating and Structuring Anti Takeover Strategies THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2011 1pm Eastern 12pm Central
SEC Finalizes Rules to Implement Dodd-Frank Act Regulation of Private Investment Funds and Their Managers
July 2011 SEC Finalizes Rules to Implement Dodd-Frank Act Regulation of Private Investment Funds and Their Managers BY THE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE On June 22, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission
Health Care Reform Provides No Relief for Employers
March 2010 Health Care Reform Provides No Relief for Employers BY STEPHEN H. HARRIS, ERIC R. KELLER, AND ETHAN LIPSIG 1. Introduction: Those who thought that health care reform should focus on fixing this
CFPB Proposes Parameters for Jurisdiction of Larger Participants in Debt Collection and Consumer Reporting Markets
February 2012 CFPB Proposes Parameters for Jurisdiction of Larger Participants in Debt Collection and Consumer Reporting Markets BY KEVIN L. PETRASIC AND KEVIN ERWIN As a follow up to the Consumer Financial
Picking Your Poison. A board considering
the M&A journal Picking Your Poison Since their development more than 25 years ago, stockholder rights plans have been one of the more-effective defensive measures available to corporations. However, after
Corruption and Compliance Programs: Comparison of French and U.S. Approaches
November 2008 Corruption and Compliance Programs: Comparison of French and U.S. Approaches BY PHILIPPE BOUCHEZ EL GHOZI, JENNIFER D. RIDDLE AND CLÉMENCE AUROY The decision concerning the conclusion of
Coach, Inc. Lists on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange: A Harbinger of Things to Come?
December 2011 Coach, Inc. Lists on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange: A Harbinger of Things to Come? BY SCOTT R. SAKS, MICHAEL L. ZUPPONE, KEITH D. PISANI & STEVEN D. WINEGAR On December 1, 2011, Hong Kong
Shareholder activism has long been used to refer to. Opinion PREPARING FOR SHAREHOLDER ACTIVISM
Holly J. Gregory PARTNER WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Holly specializes in advising companies and boards on corporate governance matters. Opinion PREPARING FOR SHAREHOLDER ACTIVISM In her regular column
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Provisions in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
August 2008 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Provisions in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 BY ALAN S. COHEN, MICHAEL D. HAUN AND MATT WALDING The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 1
CFPB Maps Out Larger Participant Nonbank Supervision Program
June 2011 CFPB Maps Out Larger Participant Nonbank Supervision Program BY KEVIN L. PETRASIC On June 23, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) issued a notice and request for comment ( Notice
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York Holds That a UCC-3 Filing Without Authorization Is No Filing at All
March 2013 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York Holds That a UCC-3 Filing Without Authorization Is No Filing at All I. Introduction On March 1, 2013, Judge Robert E. Gerber
UK and German Tax Update
December 2011 UK and German Tax Update BY ARUN BIRLA, UWE HALBIG & DAVID MALLETT Set out below is a snapshot of certain recent UK and German tax developments. UK THE 2011 AUTUMN STATEMENT On 29 November
15 - First Circuit Determines When IRS Willfully Violates Bankruptcy Discharge Order
15 - First Circuit Determines When IRS Willfully Violates Bankruptcy Discharge Order IRS v. Murphy, (CA 1, 6/7/2018) 121 AFTR 2d 2018-834 The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, affirming the district
The Future of LIBOR The Final Report from The Wheatley Review
October 2012 The Future of LIBOR The Final Report from The Wheatley Review BY RICHARD E. FARLEY On July 2, 2012, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rt. Hon. George Osborne MP, commissioned Martin Wheatley,
Titan Europe (NHP) v U.S. Bank An analysis of the High Court Ruling
April 2014 Titan Europe 2007-1 (NHP) v U.S. Bank An analysis of the High Court Ruling BY MICHELLE DUNCAN & JENNIE DORSAINT On 16 April 2014, Mr. Richard Snowden QC sitting as a Deputy Judge delivered his
UK and European Employment and Benefits Law Update
February 2008 UK and European Employment and Benefits Law Update By Anna Sanford and Chris Bracebridge AT A GLANCE This Stay Current summarises compensation, benefit and tax rate increases in the UK during
Corporate Governance and Securities Litigation ADVISORY
Corporate Governance and Securities Litigation ADVISORY March 31, 2009 Delaware Supreme Court Reaffirms Director Protections in Change of Control Context On March 25, 2009, the Delaware Supreme Court issued
Fiduciary Duties of Buy-Side Directors: Recent Lessons Learned
June 2018 Fiduciary Duties of Buy-Side Directors: Recent Lessons Learned Significant acquisitions always present risks to the acquiring entity and its stockholders. These risks may arise from, among other
Structuring Tax Provisions in M&A Agreements and Protecting Section 382 Tax Attributes
Presenting a live 110 minute teleconference with interactive Q&A Structuring Tax Provisions in M&A Agreements and Protecting Section 382 Tax Attributes THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 2013 1pm Eastern 12pm Central
Compensation Restructuring UK and Europe
April 2009 Compensation Restructuring UK and Europe BY ARUN BIRLA, RONAN O'SULLIVAN, MARK POERIO AND CHRISTOPHER WALTER UK Budget Announcement The announcement of the UK's 2009 budget on 22 April 2009
Q UPDATE EXECUTIVE RISK SOLUTIONS CASES OF INTEREST D&O FILINGS, SETTLEMENTS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
EXECUTIVE RISK SOLUTIONS Q1 2018 UPDATE CASES OF INTEREST U.S. SUPREME COURT FINDS STATE COURTS RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER 1933 ACT CLAIMS STATUTORY DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF TCPA FOUND TO BE PENALTIES AND
Shock and Awe : When Banking Agencies Unleash Their Regulatory Weapons
June 2009 Shock and Awe : When Banking Agencies Unleash Their Regulatory Weapons BY V. GERARD COMIZIO AND LAWRENCE D. KAPLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction... 1 II. Section 38 of the FDIA: The PCA Rules
SEC Adopts Summary Prospectus and Related Rules Designed to Improve Mutual Fund Prospectus Disclosure
January 2009 SEC Adopts Summary Prospectus and Related Rules Designed to Improve Mutual Fund Prospectus Disclosure FROM THE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE GROUP Overview On January 13, 2009, the Securities
Del. Confirms Continued Validity Of Advance Notice Bylaws
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Del. Confirms Continued Validity Of Advance Notice
UK Securities Law Update Q1, 2011
April 2011 UK Securities Law Update Q1, 2011 BY RONAN O'SULLIVAN, ROSS MCNAUGHTON & JAMES WRIGHT Introduction In this edition of our UK Securities Law Update we look at the proposals contained in the HM
Van Camp & Bennion v. United States 251 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001).
Van Camp & Bennion v. United States 251 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001). CLICK HERE to return to the home page No. 96-36068. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted September
Recent FCPA Enforcement Action
March 2009 Recent FCPA Enforcement Action BY TIMOTHY L. DICKINSON, WILLIAM F. PENDERGAST, JENNIFER D. RIDDLE AND PAULA R. KATZ February 11, 2009, KBR, Inc. ( KBR ) reached settlements resolving criminal
Presentation follows
May 30, 2003 THE INCREASED NEED FOR INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS BY PUBLIC COMPANIES AND THEIR AUDIT COMMITTEES by Gerald E. Boltz Presented at the Rocky Mountain Securities Conference (May 30, 2003) Copyright
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ADVISORY
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ADVISORY January 27, 2006 Delaware Chancery Court Issues Decision Containing Important Lessons for Boards and Special Committees and Raising Significant Issues for Special Committees
Smarter, Faster, Stronger: A New Suite of VC Model Docs
May 2018 Follow @Paul_Hastings Smarter, Faster, Stronger: A New Suite of VC Model Docs By Samuel A. Waxman, Jordan L. Goldman & Tyler Thiret In March 2018, for the first time in four years, the National
EU Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive - Implications for non-eu based Alternative Investment Fund Managers
November 2010 EU Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive - Implications for non-eu based Alternative Investment Fund Managers BY JONATHAN SHENKMAN AND CHRISTIAN PARKER Background Following a period
Vanguard's proxy voting guidelines
Vanguard's proxy voting guidelines The Board of Trustees (the Board) of each Vanguard fund has adopted proxy voting procedures and guidelines to govern proxy voting by the fund. The Board has delegated
MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: A MINEFIELD FOR DIRECTORS
MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: A MINEFIELD FOR DIRECTORS When a company becomes involved in an actual or proposed merger or acquisition ( M&A ), its directors are thrust into a highly volatile and dangerous claims
"It's Not My Fault": Scope of Reasonable Cause And Good Faith Exception to Tax Penalties
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW Presented: 61st Annual Taxation Conference December 4-5, 2013 Austin, Texas "It's Not My Fault": Scope of Reasonable Cause And Good Faith Exception to Tax Penalties
Lessons Learned from Indymac
July 2008 Lessons Learned from Indymac BY V. GERARD COMIZIO, JOHN L. DOUGLAS, LAWRENCE D. KAPLAN AND KEVIN L. PETRASIC On July 11, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision ( OTS ) closed the $32 billion
DELAWARE CORPORATE LAW BULLETIN
DELAWARE CORPORATE LAW BULLETIN Delaware Court Grants Pleading- Stage Dismissal of Litigation Challenging Control Stockholder-Led Buyout Robert S. Reder* Because buyout followed M&F Framework, court not
Federal Banking Agencies Propose New Guidance on Leveraged Finance
May 2012 Federal Banking Agencies Propose New Guidance on Leveraged Finance BY RICHARD E. FARLEY On March 26, 2012, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of
IN RYAN V. LYONDELL CHEMICAL COMPANY, THE DELAWARE CHANCERY COURT REMINDS DIRECTORS THAT SALE OF CONTROL TRANSACTIONS REQUIRE ROBUST BOARD INVOLVEMENT
CLIENT MEMORANDUM IN RYAN V. LYONDELL CHEMICAL COMPANY, THE DELAWARE CHANCERY COURT REMINDS DIRECTORS THAT SALE OF CONTROL TRANSACTIONS REQUIRE ROBUST BOARD INVOLVEMENT On July 29, 2008, the Delaware Chancery
California Supreme Court Rejects the Federal Narrow Restraint Exception
California Supreme Court Rejects the Federal Narrow Restraint Exception And Holds That Employment Non- Competition Agreements Are Invalid Unless They Fall Within Limited Statutory Exceptions On August
Don t Ask, Don t Waive Standstill Agreements
2012-2013 DEVELOPMENTS IN BANKING LAW 265 IV. Don t Ask, Don t Waive Standstill Agreements A. Introduction For boards of directors trying to sell their company, Don t Ask, Don t Waive standstill agreements
The Value of Management Accounting
www.cpaj.com March 2012 The Value of Management Accounting An Interview with IMA President and CEO Jeffrey C. Thomson Plus Federal Tax Update New Ethics Guidance Managing Foreign Exchange Risk F I N A
2.02 Spin-Off Transactions
2.02 Spin-Off Transactions [1] Basic Structure In the typical spin-off transaction, the parent company distributes all of the stock of a subsidiary to the parent stockholders in the form of a pro rata
SUPPLEMENT TO JOINT CONSENT SOLICITATION STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS
Filed by T-Mobile US, Inc. pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act of 1933 and deemed filed pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Subject Company: Sprint Corporation Commission
Temporary Estate, Gift and GST Tax Laws Provide Unprecedented Opportunities in 2012
Month Year Temporary Estate, Gift and GST Tax Laws Provide Unprecedented Opportunities in 2012 BY RENEE M. GABBARD, LISA M. LAFOURCADE & MEGAN S. ACOSTA It appears that the current favorable estate, gift
Fairness Opinions Under Fire By Bret A. Tack Los Angeles Office
Fairness Opinions Under Fire By Bret A. Tack Los Angeles Office A renewed market for mergers and acquisitions (and growing value of the deals) is focusing fresh attention on the fairness opinions boards
Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del.,1986)
Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del.,1986) In this battle for corporate control of Revlon, Inc. (Revlon), the Court of Chancery enjoined certain transactions designed
Controlled Foreign Corporations: Incentive to Reinvest Foreign Earnings in the United States
To maintain momentum StayCurrent. October 2004 The American Jobs Creation Act: International Tax Provisions By Douglas A. Schaaf Introduction The genesis of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (the
be known well in advance of the final IRS determination.
Tax-exempt organizations, however, do not function in a perfect world. When the IRS opens an examination, it usually does so for the earliest tax period for which an organization s statute of limitations
CENTURION COUNSEL, INC. (CCI) STRATEGIC ASSET ALLOCATION (SAA) PROGRAM
CENTURION COUNSEL, INC. (CCI) STRATEGIC ASSET ALLOCATION (SAA) PROGRAM JUNE 15, 2011 1282 PACIFIC OAKS PLACE ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 760-471-8536 This wrap fee program brochure provides information about the
2013 amendments to the delaware general corporation law
2013 amendments to the delaware general corporation law John F. Grossbauer and Mark A. Morton 1 The Governor of Delaware has signed into law amendments to the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware
EEOC Reverses Course in Proposed Wellness Program Regulations
April 2015 Follow @Paul_Hastings EEOC Reverses Course in Proposed Wellness Program Regulations BY ERIC KELLER & NEAL MOLLEN Last Thursday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) published
Negotiating and Drafting Patent Indemnification Provisions. October 6, 2011 Ira Schreger Vinson & Elkins LLP
Negotiating and Drafting Patent Indemnification Provisions October 6, 2011 Ira Schreger Vinson & Elkins LLP Agenda General Considerations Implied Warranty for Sales of Goods and Services General Drafting
Exhibit 13 Creditors Committee Solicitation Letter
Case 15-44931-rfn11 Doc 537-9 Filed 03/18/16 Entered 03/18/16 15:54:23 Page 1 of 6 Exhibit 13 Creditors Committee Solicitation Letter Case 15-44931-rfn11 Doc 537-9 Filed 03/18/16 Entered 03/18/16 15:54:23
French Issuers: All You Need to Know for your Next Equity Offering
April 2009 French Issuers: All You Need to Know for your Next Equity Offering BY ERWAN BARRE AND GUILLAUME BOITEL Faced with the economic downturn and increasingly difficult access to credit, as well as
GRYPHON ONLINE SAFETY, INC.
THIS INSTRUMENT AND THE SECURITIES ISSUABLE UPON THE CONVERSION HEREOF HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE ACT ). THEY MAY NOT BE SOLD, OFFERED FOR SALE, PLEDGED,
Mergers and Acquisitions in Canada
Mergers and Acquisitions in Canada TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.... 1 PROCESS... 2 HOSTILE BIDS.... 3 ACQUISITIONS BY CONTROL PERSONS OR OTHER INSIDERS... 4 FAIRNESS OPINIONS...................................................................4
Agreement for Non-Professional Advisors Providing Services to Interactive Brokers Canada Customers
Agreement for Non-Professional Advisors Providing Services to Interactive Brokers Canada Customers This Agreement is entered into between Interactive Brokers Canada Inc. (IB) and the undersigned Family
Testing the Limits of Lender Liability in Distressed-Loan Situations. July/August Debra K. Simpson Mark G. Douglas
Testing the Limits of Lender Liability in Distressed-Loan Situations July/August 2007 Debra K. Simpson Mark G. Douglas As has been well-publicized recently, businesses are increasingly turning to private
The Board s Role in Merger and Acquisition Transactions
The Board s Role in Merger and Acquisition Transactions American Bankers Association Annual Convention Director Boot Camp Nashville, Tennessee October 16, 2016 John J. Gorman, Esq. Lawrence M. F. Spaccasi,
Case 2:15-cv RSM Document 56 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Case :-cv-000-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of Doc -0 ( pgs) 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al.,
UK Court of Appeal Holds Offer of Global License Consistent With FRAND Obligation
UK Court of Appeal Holds Offer of Global License Consistent With FRAND Obligation Affirms Decision of Lower Court in Unwired Planet v. Huawei SUMMARY In a highly anticipated decision, 1 the UK Court of
Cash Collateral Orders Revisited Following ResCap
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Cash Collateral Orders Revisited Following ResCap
Corporate Litigation: Enforceability of Board-Adopted Forum Selection Bylaws
Corporate Litigation: Enforceability of Board-Adopted Forum Selection Bylaws Joseph M. McLaughlin * Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP October 9, 2014 Last year, the Delaware Court of Chancery in Boilermakers
The New UDAAP: The CFPB Abusive Standard Will You Know It When You See It?
The New UDAAP: The CFPB Abusive Standard Will You Know It When You See It? BY KEVIN L. PETRASIC & AMANDA J. KOWALSKI June 2013 Earlier this month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) reached
Court Rules for Appraisal: Fair Value = Intrinsic Value
THE SHAREHOLDER FORUM Forum Report: Fair Investor Access (Dell Valuation Project) September 10, 2013 Court Rules for Appraisal: Fair Value = Intrinsic Value The law firm representing Dell Valuation Trust
THE ROLE OF INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ADVISERS
22 Financial Advisory Services THE ROLE OF INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ADVISERS IN MINORITY SQUEEZE-OUT MERGERS AFTER UNOCAL EXPLORATION CORP. AND SILICONIX INCORPORATED Terry G. Whitehead, CPA and James G.
DELAWARE LAW REVIEW VOLUME NUMBER 1
DELAWARE LAW REVIEW VOLUME 12 2010 NUMBER 1 Retracing Delaware s Corporate Roots Through Recent Decisions: Corporate Foundations Remain Stable While Judicial Standards Of Review Continue To Evolve Bradley
NOL Poison Pills: Using Corporate Law for Tax Purposes
University of Dayton ecommons Accounting Faculty Publications Department of Accounting 12-2012 NOL Poison Pills: Using Corporate Law for Tax Purposes Sarah J. Webber University of Dayton, swebber1@udayton.edu
DELAWARE CORPORATE LAW BULLETIN
DELAWARE CORPORATE LAW BULLETIN Delaware Court Rejects Claim that Directors Acted in Bad Faith By Selling Company Facing Activist Threat Robert S. Reder* Celine L. Feys** Reaffirms high bar for proving
New Italian Rules for Joint and Several Liability in Contracts and Subcontracts
June 2013 New Italian Rules for Joint and Several Liability in Contracts and Subcontracts BY BERNADETTE ACCILI, FRANCESCA PETRONIO, FRANCESCO FALCO & DOMENICO GIOIA In the modern economy, the growth of
Exhibit T ASSIGNMENT OF LICENSES, PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES. Recitals:
Exhibit T ASSIGNMENT OF LICENSES, PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES This Assignment of Licenses. Permits and Certificates ( Assignment ) is made effective as of, 20 (the Effective Date ) by and between DESERT MOUNTAIN
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. VERIFIED PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER 8 DEL. C. 205
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE: MABVAX THERAPEUTICS HOLDINGS, INC. ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. VERIFIED PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER 8 DEL. C. 205 Petitioner MabVax Therapeutics Holdings,
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2009 INDEX NO /2009 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2009
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2009 INDEX NO. 650618/2009 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2009 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------X
04 - Fourth and Eleventh Circuits Find CARDs Transaction Lacked Economic Substance
04 - Fourth and Eleventh Circuits Find CARDs Transaction Lacked Economic Substance Curtis Investment Company, LLC, v. Comm., (CA11 12/6/2018) 122 AFTR 2d 2018-5485; Baxter, et ux v. Comm., (CA4, 12/7/2018)