Many companies have spent the last few years buying up every acquisition target and that too with a pulse
Que: Why are so many private equity (PE) deals blowing up? (Alan Engle, Great Neck, NY) Ans: The short answer is that the world has changed (read: United States sub-prime mortgage mess has erupted). A lot of top-notch companies that were once totally hell-bent on acquiring hot new properties suddenly want out of deals that are now starting to look too cold for their comfort. It’s sort of like those terrifying hours after the ill-fated Titanic ran afoul of the iceberg. All the realists present in the crowd didn’t exactly just stroll towards the lifeboats. They simply bolted.
That’s what you’re seeing now – and not just from private equity firms. Many companies, emboldened by the strong economy and its abundance of low-cost credit, have spent the last few years buying up every acquisition target and that too with a pulse. Along the way, dealmakers didn’t exactly ignore risk; they just thought they would be able to handle any form of mishegoss, or craziness, later. Well, it’s “later” now, and dealmakers are starting to bail. It’s amazing that some can. Or at least, they can try – thanks to MAC, the Material Adverse Change clause embedded in virtually every merger-and-acquisition (M&A) contract.
Indeed, in our view, what’s happening with MAC right now provides an important, if wince-inducing, management lesson about when a CEO should delegate the “details” concerning significant risk – which is basically never. Wince-inducing because it’s astonishingly easy to do otherwise. Imagine yourself at the center of a deal being forged. Your team started out the process by making the target company’s team a “generous” offer of, say, $23 a share. “Ridiculous!” was their retort. “We are not going to our board with anything less than $27.”
Then, for the next slew of days, if not weeks, you wrangle, begrudging each other a miniscule $0.50 at a time. Finally, after negotiating every last provision of the financials, the end comes into sight with a price of $25.50, right in the middle with a little sweetener thrown in for the target. And, no surprise, it is 8 p.m. on a Friday night. Finally you and the CEO of the opposite party shake hands, in equal parts exhausted and exultant, and turn to your own lawyers. “Paper this up,” you both together say, “and have it ready before the market opens on Monday.” At which point, the lawyers of both parties go into hyper-drive.
One of their jobs is to come up with a list of all the things that could go wrong between the announcement of the deal and its close, like a major strike against the target company or one of its big customers going belly up. Such an accounting of every possible “adverse change” is the more straightforward part of the contract process, and usually gets done without too much sound and fury. The hard part – the part that usually gets short shrift – is the clause in the contract that defines exactly what would make any adverse change “material,” that is, significant enough to merit killing the deal.
Materiality is hard to nail down for several reasons, but the main one is simply that the laws governing it are not particularly crisp. That makes it very difficult under any circumstances, let alone high-pressure ones, to put a fine point on the meaning of the term. Is it a 20 percent hit to earnings? Or a 15 percent decrease in revenues? Who knows? And so, the lawyers usually end up leaving the language vague enough for both sides to say, “Well, OK. It looks good enough.” Fast forward, then, to an adverse change, like the sub-prime crisis we’re in right now and you understand why so many companies are engaged in legal slugfests over what their MAC clauses technically allow.
Sallie Mae, the United States’ largest student loan provider, and the private equity firm J. C. Flowers could be in court for years, for instance, as could Cerberus, the international private investment firm, and United Rentals, the world’s largest equipment rental company. What a waste of time, energy and money for everyone involved.
In time, of course, credit will loosen and the economy will recover, and when that happens, the details of any given MAC clause will matter a lot less. But even then, there will always be contracts with room for maneuvering and mischief around their terms, if only because there will always be dealmakers who would rather hedge their bets than face the reality that sometimes, MAC happens. If the current sub-prime mess teaches us anything, however, it is that principals should stay with their deals through the bitter end, sorting out of every last detail surrounding risk. It’s grunt work, we realise, gritty, boring and plain not fun. But when the stakes are high, you have absolutely no choice. Don’t delegate the pain away.
Que: Why are so many private equity (PE) deals blowing up? (Alan Engle, Great Neck, NY) Ans: The short answer is that the world has changed (read: United States sub-prime mortgage mess has erupted). A lot of top-notch companies that were once totally hell-bent on acquiring hot new properties suddenly want out of deals that are now starting to look too cold for their comfort. It’s sort of like those terrifying hours after the ill-fated Titanic ran afoul of the iceberg. All the realists present in the crowd didn’t exactly just stroll towards the lifeboats. They simply bolted.
That’s what you’re seeing now – and not just from private equity firms. Many companies, emboldened by the strong economy and its abundance of low-cost credit, have spent the last few years buying up every acquisition target and that too with a pulse. Along the way, dealmakers didn’t exactly ignore risk; they just thought they would be able to handle any form of mishegoss, or craziness, later. Well, it’s “later” now, and dealmakers are starting to bail. It’s amazing that some can. Or at least, they can try – thanks to MAC, the Material Adverse Change clause embedded in virtually every merger-and-acquisition (M&A) contract.
Indeed, in our view, what’s happening with MAC right now provides an important, if wince-inducing, management lesson about when a CEO should delegate the “details” concerning significant risk – which is basically never. Wince-inducing because it’s astonishingly easy to do otherwise. Imagine yourself at the center of a deal being forged. Your team started out the process by making the target company’s team a “generous” offer of, say, $23 a share. “Ridiculous!” was their retort. “We are not going to our board with anything less than $27.”
Then, for the next slew of days, if not weeks, you wrangle, begrudging each other a miniscule $0.50 at a time. Finally, after negotiating every last provision of the financials, the end comes into sight with a price of $25.50, right in the middle with a little sweetener thrown in for the target. And, no surprise, it is 8 p.m. on a Friday night. Finally you and the CEO of the opposite party shake hands, in equal parts exhausted and exultant, and turn to your own lawyers. “Paper this up,” you both together say, “and have it ready before the market opens on Monday.” At which point, the lawyers of both parties go into hyper-drive.
One of their jobs is to come up with a list of all the things that could go wrong between the announcement of the deal and its close, like a major strike against the target company or one of its big customers going belly up. Such an accounting of every possible “adverse change” is the more straightforward part of the contract process, and usually gets done without too much sound and fury. The hard part – the part that usually gets short shrift – is the clause in the contract that defines exactly what would make any adverse change “material,” that is, significant enough to merit killing the deal.
Materiality is hard to nail down for several reasons, but the main one is simply that the laws governing it are not particularly crisp. That makes it very difficult under any circumstances, let alone high-pressure ones, to put a fine point on the meaning of the term. Is it a 20 percent hit to earnings? Or a 15 percent decrease in revenues? Who knows? And so, the lawyers usually end up leaving the language vague enough for both sides to say, “Well, OK. It looks good enough.” Fast forward, then, to an adverse change, like the sub-prime crisis we’re in right now and you understand why so many companies are engaged in legal slugfests over what their MAC clauses technically allow.
Sallie Mae, the United States’ largest student loan provider, and the private equity firm J. C. Flowers could be in court for years, for instance, as could Cerberus, the international private investment firm, and United Rentals, the world’s largest equipment rental company. What a waste of time, energy and money for everyone involved.
In time, of course, credit will loosen and the economy will recover, and when that happens, the details of any given MAC clause will matter a lot less. But even then, there will always be contracts with room for maneuvering and mischief around their terms, if only because there will always be dealmakers who would rather hedge their bets than face the reality that sometimes, MAC happens. If the current sub-prime mess teaches us anything, however, it is that principals should stay with their deals through the bitter end, sorting out of every last detail surrounding risk. It’s grunt work, we realise, gritty, boring and plain not fun. But when the stakes are high, you have absolutely no choice. Don’t delegate the pain away.
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2008
An IIPM and Professor Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist) Initiative
Read these article :-
ZEE BUSINESS BEST B SCHOOL SURVEY
B-schooled in India, Placed Abroad (Print Version)
IIPM in Financial times (Print Version)
IIPM makes business education truly global (Print Version)
The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM)
IIPM Campus
Top Articles on IIPM:-
IIPM makes business education truly global-Education-The Times of ...
The Hindu : Education Plus : Honour for IIPM
IIPM ranked No.1 B-School in India, Management News - By ...
IIPM Ranked No1 B-School in India
Moneycontrol >> News >> Press- News >> IIPM ranked No1 B-School in ...
IIPM ranked No. 1 B-school in India- Zee Business Survey ...
IIPM ranked No1 B-School in India :: Education, Careers ...
The Hindu Business Line : IIPM placements hit a high of over 2000 jobs
Deccan Herald - IIPM ranked as top B-School in India
India eNews - IIPM Ranked No1 B-School in India
IIPM Delhi - Indian Institute of Planning and Management New Delhi ...
domain-b.com : IIPM ranked ahead of IIMs
No comments:
Post a Comment