|
Lawrence Rolnick |
Law360, New York (August
07, 2013, 7:42 PM ET) -- As demonstrated by Carl
Icahn’s recent announcement in connection with the
acquisition of
Dell Inc., professional investors are increasingly
exercising appraisal rights to achieve a fair price
for their stock in a merger.
Accordingly, it is worth noting that the Delaware
Chancery Court has now clearly rejected any
presumptive weight attached to the merger price as
evidence of the fair value of the company’s shares.
Under Delaware law, a company’s shareholders of record
are entitled to demand that a court appraise the value
of their shares in lieu of accepting the merger price.
Once a stockholder validly exercises its appraisal
rights, the Delaware court must determine the fair
value of the shares as of the merger date and award
that amount to the stockholder. At least one analysis
of reported appraisal decisions shows a median
increase of 82.1 percent over the merger price.
The Role of Merger Price in Assessing Fair
Value
Acquirers defending appraisal rights cases have
repeatedly urged courts to accept the premise that in
an arm’s-length transaction, the merger consideration
offered in the transaction and accepted by the board
is a reasonable proxy for the stock’s fair value.
Since the merger price typically includes a premium
above the existing market trading price for the stock,
and the merger price was the result of a robust
auction process or other arm’s-length transaction that
was blessed by a “fair value” opinion, it is argued
that it reflects “fair value.” However, Delaware law
has been reluctant to embrace that self-serving view.
In recent years, the Delaware courts have repeatedly
declined to accept the merger price as a measure of
fair value. Thus, in Golden Telecom Inc. v. Global GT
LP, the Delaware Supreme Court expressed its
skepticism about simply deferring to merger price:
Section 262(h) unambiguously calls upon the Court of Chancery to perform an independent valuation of “fair value” at the time of a transaction. … Requiring the Court of Chancery to defer — conclusively or presumptively — to the merger price, even in the face of a pristine, unchallenged transactional process, would contravene the unambiguous language of the statute and the reasoned holdings of our precedent. …Therefore, we reject [respondent’s] contention that the Vice Chancellor erred by insufficiently deferring to the merger price, and we reject its call to establish a rule requiring the Court of Chancery to defer to the merger price in any appraisal proceeding.
Golden Telecom, 11 A.3d 214, 217-28 (Del. 2010)
Consistent with Golden
Telecom, last year, Chancellor Strine refused to give
any weight to merger price, remaining unmoved by the
“rhetorical hay” that the acquirer made out of its
search for other buyers. Concluding that “this is an
appraisal action, not a fiduciary duty case, and
although I have little reason to doubt” that no buyer
was willing to pay the target $25 million for the
preferred stock and an attractive price for the common
stock, “an appraisal must be focused on [respondent’s]
going concern value.” In re Orchard Enters. Inc. (Del
Ch. July 18, 2012).
The Delaware Chancery Court Now Explicitly
Disregards Merger Price
More recently, in Merion Capital LP v.
3M Cogent Inc., __ A.2d __ (Del. Ch. July 8,
2013), Vice Chancellor Parsons soundly rejected the
acquirer’s suggestion that the merger price be taken
as evidence of the fair value of stockholders’ shares.
In doing so, the court relied on Golden Telecom and
Orchard and observed that the acquirer’s case cites
supporting its insistence on the merger price all
predated Golden Telecom.
In Cogent, the acquirer did not use the merger price
in presenting its proposed value to the court for the
litigation ($10.50 per share) but instead advanced the
price determined by its experts’ analysis ($10.12).
Moreover, the company did not attempt to adjust the
merger price to remove the “speculative elements of
value” arising from the synergistic expectation of the
merger.
Accordingly, the court put a nail in the coffin for
any presumptive value being attached to the merger
price: “In other words, Respondent asks this Court to
rely on a merger price that it has not relied on
itself and that is not adjusted to produce the going
concern value of Cogent. Those deficiencies render the
merger price largely irrelevant to this case.”
Delaware courts had already largely disregarded the
merger price in determining value in appraisal rights
cases. Thus, in the vast majority of all Delaware
appraisal rights cases conducted since the seminal
1983 case in this area, the court adopted a going
concern valuation in excess — often far in excess — of
the merger price.[1]
In sum, the Cogent case neatly summarized what had
been the operative reality in the Delaware courts for
years: In adjudicating appraisal rights, merger price
is no proxy for fair value. The courts will start with
a clean slate and undertake their own searching
analysis for how to assess the stock’s worth. Whatever
the acquirer paid is largely irrelevant to that
inquiry.
Professional investors who believe their stock is more
valuable than the merger price being offered should
consider exercising their right to an appraisal. At
the very least, exercising appraisal rights gives the
investor an additional 60-day period to either
continue seeking appraisal or accept the merger
consideration.
--By Lawrence M. Rolnick and Steven M. Hecht,
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Lawrence Rolnick is a partner in the firm's
Roseland, N.J., office.
Steven Hecht is a partner in the New York office.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its
clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or
their respective affiliates. This article is for
general information purposes and is not intended to be
and should not be taken as legal advice.
[1] See Doft & Co. v.
Travelocity.com Inc. (Del. Ch.) (appraisal share
price: $32.76; merger share price: $28.00); Lane v.
Cancer Treatment Ctrs. of Am. Inc. (Del. Ch.)
(appraisal share price: $1,345.00; merger share price:
$260.00); Prescott (appraisal share price: $32.35;
merger share price: $9.31); MedPointe (appraisal share
price: $24.45; merger share price: $20.44); Dobler v.
Montgomery Cellular Holding Co. (Del. Ch.) (appraisal
share price: $19,621.74; merger share price
$8,102.23), rev’d on other grounds, 880 A.2d 206 (Del.
2005); Gholl (appraisal share price: $1.64; merger
share price: $1.06); In re U.S. Cellular Operating Co.
(Del. Ch.) (appraisal share prices: $54.00 and $30.13
for Janesville and Sheboygan shareholders,
respectively; merger share prices: $43.85 and $21.45);
Kessler, 898 A.2d 290 (appraisal share price:
$33,232.26; merger share price: $16,228.55); In re PNB
Holding Co. S’holders Litig. (Del. Ch.) (appraisal
share price: $52.34; merger share price: $41.00);
Crescent/ Mach I P’Ship, L.P. v. Turner (Del. Ch.)
(appraisal share price: $32.31; merger share price:
$25.00).