Regulatory: Navigating the “dual track” IPO/M&A process
As the global economy continues to show signs of improvement and markets chart all-time highs, the prospects for initial public offerings (IPOs) look promising and, in particular, the pipeline for IPOs in 2013 appears robust.
April 10, 2013 at 05:15 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As the global economy continues to show signs of improvement and markets chart all-time highs, the prospects for initial public offerings (IPOs) look promising and, in particular, the pipeline for IPOs in 2013 appears robust. As has been the trend for the past several years, many companies pursuing an IPO, particularly private equity-backed and venture-backed companies, are expected to run a “dual track” process by pursuing an IPO while simultaneously running a confidential, private auction to sell the company.
The dual track approach is popular because it offers sellers a number of perceived advantages in their search for liquidity and maximum value. The possibility of an imminent IPO lends a sense of urgency to the sale process by creating a “now or never” dynamic for buyers, which can lead to higher sale premiums. A dual track process also allows sellers to preserve optionality as they evaluate the attractiveness of multiple exit (or partial exit) options while hedging against IPO market volatility (which can cause capital markets “windows” to close overnight) and overall deal uncertainty.
The data appears to support the perceived advantages of running a dual track process. A July 2010 study published in the Journal of Business Venturing found that companies sold privately in the course of a dual track process realized a 22 to 26 percent premium over companies acquired without a concurrent IPO process. While a dual track process places increased burdens on management's time and resources, and can further distract management from running the day-to-day operations of the business, a number of synergies between the two paths make the dual track process efficient. For example, for the IPO, the company will set up an electronic data room in which the underwriters and their respective counsel can conduct their due diligence review. The working group will pull together the company's “story” and value proposition, along with detailed business and financial information about the company, which the company will disclose in a registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Company management will also prepare projections and management presentations. These items play an equally critical role in the M&A path.
The first step in a typical dual track process involves filing the company's IPO registration statement with the SEC. If the company qualifies as an “emerging growth company” under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, it can file the registration statement confidentially to keep its financial and other disclosures from becoming publicly available. However, the company can issue a press release disclosing the filing, which will initiate the competitive process. During the SEC's 30-day initial review period of the IPO registration statement, the company's financial advisors will contact potential buyers for the M&A process and distribute a “teaser” with high-level information about the company.
Next, the company will negotiate confidentiality agreements with interested buyers and provide a confidential information memorandum (CIM) with information and data largely derived from the IPO registration statement. While projections typically are not included in the IPO registration statement or provided to potential investors in the IPO road show, it is customary for the CIM to include projections. Projections prepared for the M&A path are typically more aggressive than the internal projections prepared for the IPO as sellers seek to maximize value in connection with a complete, rather than partial, exit of their investment.
Potential buyers will conduct due diligence and provide initial indications of interest. Based on these indications, the company will select a limited number of buyers to proceed to the “second round” of the auction process, during which it will provide more detailed diligence and management presentations. Buyers will then submit final indications of interest, and the company will negotiate definitive documentation to sell the company with a small number of buyers.
Throughout the time that the sale process is progressing, the company will continue to file amendments to its IPO registration statement in response to SEC comments, which further communicates the viability of the IPO path to potential buyers and creates the necessary “tension” that forms the desired competitive dynamic. Typically, the seller will seek to preserve all options until it has a clear view of the preferable path, with the culmination of the dual track process ending in the signing of definitive documentation to sell the company or commencing the road show and pricing the IPO.
Companies should carefully consider which investors to contact in connection with the sale process, because potential buyers who are provided detailed written information about the company will be “boxed out” of purchasing the company's stock in the IPO if the company sale process falls through. This is due to the fact that under federal securities law requirements, companies may not provide written materials to potential purchasers in an IPO until a prospectus complying with the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 is available. Such a prospectus is commonly referred to as a “preliminary prospectus” or “red herring prospectus.” Using a non-compliant preliminary prospectus could be viewed as an illegal “offer” in violation of the Securities Act and potentially provide purchasers who were offered stock a right of rescission under the Securities Act.
Most practitioners take the position that providing detailed written materials to prospective buyers in the M&A path is not problematic (and that such materials are not “offers” to buy securities in the IPO) under applicable securities laws so long as the materials relate solely to the company sale process and the recipients of the information will not be (and will not be permitted to be) purchasers of stock in the IPO. To address these concerns, best practice is not to send the IPO registration statement to potential buyers in the M&A process. Additionally, the confidentiality agreements executed with potential buyers commonly include “standstill” provisions prohibiting buyers from acquiring the target company's stock. These provisions may also explicitly prohibit the potential buyer from purchasing stock in the IPO for a short period of time after the IPO.
As discussed above, the CIM will typically include projections not included in the IPO registration statement. Most practitioners take the position that such projections do not constitute material information in connection with the IPO because they usually are based on numerous aspirational assumptions that cannot be validated and can quickly become stale.
The risk that materials will be disseminated more broadly beyond the limited pool of potential buyers and be leaked to the public is a legitimate source of concern. If private information such as projections becomes publicly available, the SEC may require the company to include (and assume liability for) the information in the IPO registration statement. Accordingly, companies must take precautions to ensure confidentiality in the M&A process.
Carefully orchestrating the timing of steps in both paths in the dual track process is critical so that one process does not get ahead of the other. For example, the company should delay filing an amendment to its registration statement that includes a price range for the stock to be sold in the IPO until such time as it has a good understanding of the likelihood of the M&A path as it will not want to “tip” its hand about the company's valuation in the IPO and adversely affect the price a buyer may offer for the entire company in the sale process.
A dual track process is time and resource intensive. It will require extensive coordination and cooperation among team members, including the seller, management, financial advisors and counsel. If run effectively, however, it can increase the odds that a seller will achieve the most favorable exit and obtain the maximum value available within the context of existing market conditions.
Image credit: Tom Bachtell, IPO Land 2012 © tombachtell.com
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInternal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readFTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Supreme Court Reinstates Corporate Disclosure Law Pending Challenge
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250