Wall Street bankers involved in the lucrative and
thinly policed business of offering "fairness opinions" on the value of
corporate mergers and acquisitions may face tough new rules for
disclosing the financial incentives that they and the company executives
they advise have for pushing through deals.
The NASD, the main self-regulatory body for brokerage
firms, has begun a potentially far-reaching inquiry into the fees,
methods and possible conflicts of interest connected with such opinions,
people familiar with the inquiry say. At a time when the M&A business is
gaining momentum in a resurgent economy -- with 7,226 deals totaling
$558 billion in the U.S. last year, according to data company Dealogic
-- any significant regulatory shift could touch a lot of wallets.
The changes being considered by the NASD, formerly
known as the National Association of Securities Dealers, also could help
prevent ill-conceived deals that ultimately erode shareholder value or
force thousands of layoffs. They could even alter the dynamics of how
companies are bought and sold.
The NASD sent letters to several Wall Street firms
earlier this year requesting information about their recently issued
fairness opinions in an attempt to examine possible conflicts in past
deals. The agency's board of governors may vote as soon as this summer
to propose new rules governing prospective fairness opinions.
Spokeswoman Nancy Condon said that the agency is looking at a variety of
"possible approaches" to deal with conflicts of interest involving such
opinions but that "primarily, we've been working on disclosure
requirements." She declined to comment further on the inquiry.
While the NASD seems to have seized the lead on the
issue, other regulators could join in. Securities watchdogs are eager to
appear more proactive after being criticized in recent years for
allowing longstanding conflicts of interest to fester, including stock
research tainted by bankers' desire to tout clients during the
The NASD's proposals would require approval by the
Securities and Exchange Commission, which is itself conducting an
inquiry into a broader array of potential conflicts of interest on Wall
Street and looking at ways to mitigate them. New York State's attorney
general, Eliot Spitzer, has said in the past that he was considering
looking more closely at fairness opinions, but a spokeswoman said
yesterday that his office isn't currently active in the area.
Fairness opinions are provided routinely on a host of
corporate transactions, including initial public stock offerings,
takeovers and spinoffs of company units. In mergers and acquisitions,
corporate boards commonly seek these opinions to protect against legal
challenges over a decision to do a deal.
At a few million dollars a pop in many cases, they've
become a money-making sideline for Wall Street that can also lead to
investment-banking work. The opinions are sometimes done by investment
bankers whose firms have no other role in the deal. But they also can be
prepared by bankers from the same firm that suggested a deal take place
and that stands to collect a "success fee" that is a percentage of the
deal's price at completion.
When Bank of America Corp. agreed to acquire
FleetBoston Financial Corp. for more than $40 billion last fall, Bank of
America agreed to pay adviser Goldman Sachs Group Inc. $3 million
as a retainer, $5 million for its fairness opinion, and $17 million upon
completion of the merger, according to a proxy statement filed on the
deal. FleetBoston agreed to pay adviser Morgan Stanley as much as
$25 million for the same set of services, the proxy said.
This spring, when Royal Bank of Scotland Group
PLC's Citizens Financial Group Inc. agreed to buy Charter One
Financial Inc., of Cleveland, for about $10.5 billion, Charter One
agreed to pay Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. $2 million when the
merger was announced and $21.2 million at the closing of the merger,
according to a Charter One proxy filing on the deal. Lehman's services
included a fairness opinion.
Lehman, Morgan Stanley and Goldman declined to comment
on the transactions.
Jim Moloney, an attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in
Irvine, Calif., who often advises on large corporate deals, said that
"because fairness is so subjective," banks aren't "insuring or
guaranteeing it's the best deal for shareholders. They're simply saying
it fits within a range of fairness."
The people familiar with the NASD inquiry said the
greater disclosure requirements under discussion could, in effect, make
investment bankers responsible for ascertaining independently the fair
value of a transaction before certifying to a corporate board that
company management is doing the deal at a fair price.
Bankers who provide fairness opinions tend to rely
heavily on public filings and information that corporate insiders give
them regarding assets and liabilities, according to bankers and
management experts. While bankers sometimes do extensive additional
work, the potential to win investment-banking business from their
clients gives them an incentive to accommodate management and declare
that the terms of a proposed deal are fair. The NASD could propose more
fact-finding, including requiring that bankers examine the financial
rewards that senior officers may receive by doing a deal.
According to a person familiar with discussions within
the NASD, some officials there worry about the large number of corporate
executives who have "change in control" clauses in their employment
contracts that award them big bonuses upon the sale or restructuring of
their companies. Such bonuses typically aren't detailed now in the
fairness opinions delivered by Wall Street.
In some hotly contested recent mergers, shareholders
have alleged that self-interest caused bankers and executives to put a
seal of approval on a low price that wasn't in the best interest of the
shareholders. The low price might help ensure that the deal went through
and so trigger the bonus.
Such change-in-control payments became an issue last
year, for example, when France's AXA SA sought to acquire MONY
Group Inc. for $1.5 billion. Some shareholders went to court to try
to block the vote, arguing that the offer was unacceptably low. They
contended one reason company management had pushed the deal was that
senior officers stood to make tens of millions of dollars upon its
completion, and that the payments weren't adequately disclosed.
Credit Suisse First Boston, a unit of Credit Suisse
Group, provided the fairness opinion for MONY. While a Delaware Chancery
Court judge required greater disclosures about the payments, it noted
that CSFB actually had an incentive to push for a high, not low, price:
It stood to earn a separate success fee based on the size of the deal.
Its fees in aggregate are expected to total $16 million, according to
public filings. Last month, shareholders voted to approve the merger. A
CSFB spokesman declined to comment.
Some securities-law specialists question how much
beefed-up disclosure would accomplish. They say it might hurt companies
by making deals more expensive and time-consuming, while failing to
eliminate the problematic financial incentives.
"There's a fundamental conflict to begin with when a
company hires an investment banker with the expectation that they will
provide the company with the fairness opinion they are looking for,"
said Lucian Bebchuk, professor of law, economics and finance at Harvard
Law School. "Disclosing that this problem exists ... might enable the
shareholders to assign a touch less weight to the investment banker's
opinion," but the incentives will still exist, he said.
Already, with the NASD inquiry pending, Wall Street
lawyers said firms have begun disclosing more about the component parts
of their fees when deals are announced. Corporate boards increasingly
are forming special committees, often with independent board members, to
evaluate potential conflicts that may influence a transaction, said
Marjorie Bowen, national director of the fairness-opinion practice at
investment bank Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin. As a further
measure, said Bob Hotz, an investment banker with the firm, "we're
starting to see companies ask for a second fairness opinion by an
Fairness opinions became common after a 1985 ruling by
the Supreme Court of Delaware, the leading jurisdiction for M&A law
because of the large number of companies that incorporate in Delaware.
In that case, which involved allegations that Trans Union Corp. sold
itself too cheaply to the Pritzker family, the court held that Trans
Union's board had violated a duty of care and sold the company for too
little money. The court stated that getting a fairness opinion would
have helped in fulfilling that duty.
The decision prompted corporate boards to routinely
seek fairness opinions. But their purpose was as much bullet-proofing a
board's decision as exploring valuations.
Fairness opinions "are basically legal documents.
They're not really investment documents," asserted Charles M. Elson,
professor of corporate governance at the University of Delaware. There
is no accepted standard by which bankers should perform valuation
analyses for such opinions, he said. "What happens is the board needs an
opinion like that to protect itself legally."
Write to Ann Davis at