Now that the amendments to the Delaware appraisal statute have been signed into law, the new provisions will apply to all M&A agreements entered into on or after August 1. Here is a link to the rule as revised, showing the new terms (only Sections 8-11 relate to appraisal). As we have posted previously, the statute, as amended, now (i) sets a floor for appraisal proceedings based on the quantum or dollar size of shareholdings and (ii) permits M&A targets to prepay dissenters in an amount of their choosing to halt the interest clock on the amount prepaid. As we’ve observed before, investors may welcome the opportunity to redeploy any such prepayments to the next appraisal case, thus indirectly solving the liquidity problem that has prevented some shareholders from exercising appraisal in the first place.
On July 8, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its opinion in In re Appraisal of DFC Global Corp. A financial buyer, Lone Star Fund VIII, acquired DFC Corporation in June 2014 for $9.50 per share in an all-cash deal. Using a combination of a discounted cash flow analysis, comparable companies analysis, and the merger price, Chancellor Bouchard determined the fair value of DFC as a stand-alone entity at the time of closing to be $10.21 per share, or 7% above deal price, before adding statutory interest.
While observing “merger price in an arm’s-length transaction that was subjected to a robust market check is a strong indication of fair value,” the Court also cautioned that merger price “is reliable only when the market conditions leading to the transaction are conducive to achieving a fair price.” Concluding that deference to merger price would be improper, the Court highlighted that “[t]he transaction here was negotiated and consummated during a period of significant company turmoil and regulatory uncertainty” arising from possible regulatory changes affecting payday lenders, such as DFC, in the countries in which they operate. These potential regulatory changes could have had the negative effect of rendering DFC’s business not viable or the positive effect of reducing DFC’s competition in certain markets. As a result of this uncertainty, DFC repeatedly lowered guidance throughout the sales process and potential bidders were deterred. Indeed, Lone Star itself cited the uncertainty surrounding DFC as a reason it perceived value in acquiring the DFC. Because of these regulatory uncertainties and their impact on management’s forecasts, the Court gave equal weight to its DCF analysis, the comparable companies analysis, and the merger price.
The Court’s opinion is also notable for its extensive discussion of the relevant beta to apply. Specifically, the Court declined to rely upon Barra beta, a proprietary model designed to measure a firm’s sensitivity to changes in the industry or the market. While not rejecting the use of Barra beta wholesale, the Court reiterated that in order to rely upon it, the expert applying the model must be able to re-create its findings and explain its predictive effectiveness, something DFC’s expert was found unable to do. The Court also reiterated its preference for a beta that applies a measurement period of five years rather than two years unless “a fundamental change in business operations occurs.”
Finally, the Court rejected Petitioners’ expert’s use of a 3-stage DCF model. As the Court recognized, “that the growth rate drops off somewhat sharply from the projection period to the terminal period is not ideal but not necessarily problematic.” The Court was particularly reluctant to perform a 3-stage DCF that extrapolated from forecasts it found to be flawed given the regulatory uncertainty. Accordingly, the Court performed a 2-stage DCF, the analysis of which is regularly cited in Owen v. Cannon, a case on which we’ve blogged on previously.
Ultimately, dissenters are receiving $10.21 per share, along with interest accruing from the June 13, 2014, closing at the statutory rate of 5% over the Federal Reserve discount rate, compounded quarterly. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that, as of this posting, the appraisal award thus rises to approximately $11.50 total, or approximately 21% over the merger price, once interest is factored in.
In a March 2016 working paper, Corporate Darwinism: Disciplining Managers in a World With Weak Shareholder Litigation, Professors James D. Cox and Randall S. Thomas detail several recent legislative and judicial actions that potentially restrict the efficacy of shareholder acquisition-oriented class actions to control corporate managerial agency costs. The authors then discuss new corporate governance mechanisms that have naturally developed as alternative means to address managerial agency costs. One of these emerging mechanisms possibly as a response to judicial and legislative restrictions on shareholder litigation, is the appraisal proceeding. As readers of this blog are well aware, the resurgence of appraisal proceedings has also been fueled by the practice of appraisal arbitrage.
Does the resurgence of appraisal litigation provide an indirect check on corporate managerial or insider abuse? Professors Cox and Thomas are skeptical, citing several factors that may limit an expansion of appraisal litigation beyond its traditional role. However, they acknowledge that there are circumstances where appraisal litigation can potentially fill the managerial agency cost control void that other receding forms of shareholder litigation have created.
As the paper argues, at first glance, appraisal litigation appears to be a powerful tool for investors to monitor corporate management and control managerial agency costs. However, shareholders face certain disadvantages in an appraisal proceeding, including the completion of required, difficult procedural steps that must be followed precisely to maintain appraisal rights (highlighted by the recent Dell decision); the lack of a class action procedure that would allow joinder of all dissenting shareholders in order to more easily share litigation costs; and the narrow limits of appraisal as purely a valuation exercise that does not take aim at corporate misconduct.
After identifying these general obstacles to appraisal, the authors discuss more specific factors that arguably limit the efficacy of appraisal for remedying management abuse in all M&A transactions. Thus, appraisal is available as a remedy only in certain transactions (e.g., the market-out exception), and even among those transactions that qualify for appraisal, initiating appraisal litigation may often not be cost effective, especially for small shareholders. Also, deals can be structured to minimize or even avoid appraisal altogether.
Cox and Thomas also highlight circumstances where appraisal may well serve as a check on management power. First, appraisal can protect shareholders from being shortchanged in control shareholder squeezeouts. Because these transactions are not subject to a market check, appraisal gives shareholders a tool to ensure that the merger price reflects the fair value of the acquired shares. Leveraged buyouts that do not undergo market checks may also raise conflict of interest concerns, especially when the target’s executives may seek to keep their jobs and be hired by a private equity buyer to run the firm. In this scenario, appraisal arbitrage may ensure shareholders are not shortchanged in a sale of control. Shareholders facing these circumstances may benefit from appraisal.
Second, appraisal arbitrage, as repeatedly covered by this blog, is a viable appraisal tactic. As we’ve previously discussed, appraisal arbitrage has been facilitated by the Delaware Chancery Court decision of In re Appraisal Transkaryotic Therapies Inc., which held that shareholders who purchased their stock in the target company after the stockholders’ meeting, but before the stockholder vote, could seek appraisal despite not having the right to vote those shares at the meeting.
In their 2015 article Appraisal Arbitrage and the Future of Public Company M&A, Professors Korsmo and Myers argued that a robust appraisal remedy could work as a socially beneficial back-end check on insider abuse in merger transactions, but the authors appear skeptical that appraisal can fill this role due to limitations discussed here. These authors don’t take a normative position on appraisal arbitrage but simply query its efficacy as a control on managerial agency costs.
* * * *
The Appraisal Rights Litigation Blog thanks Charles York, a student at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and summer law clerk for Lowenstein Sandler, for his contribution to this post.