Germany: The takeover test
The appetite in the market for public takeovers is getting stronger in Germany. Shortly after the German Takeover Act was enacted in 2002, almost all takeovers in Germany were coordinated upfront with both major shareholders and the management of the target; they typically ended with acceptance levels well above 75% - or even 95% - of the shares. The latter threshold is required for a squeeze-out of the remaining minority shareholders which had been permitted by a new law which was also enacted in 2002. At least in concept, the 75% threshold is relevant under German corporate law for structural measures such as a merger or the implementation of a domination and profit transfer agreement, which is necessary to establish a fiscal unity between the acquirer and the target for tax purposes. In the event of a leveraged financing, the 75% threshold is also of specific importance from the perspective of the financing banks, because the most common acquisition structures involve such structural measures in order to allow the provision of upstream security as well as access to the cash flow of the target.
July 25, 2007 at 10:00 PM
7 minute read
The appetite in the market for public takeovers is getting stronger in Germany. Shortly after the German Takeover Act was enacted in 2002, almost all takeovers in Germany were coordinated upfront with both major shareholders and the management of the target; they typically ended with acceptance levels well above 75% – or even 95% – of the shares. The latter threshold is required for a squeeze-out of the remaining minority shareholders which had been permitted by a new law which was also enacted in 2002. At least in concept, the 75% threshold is relevant under German corporate law for structural measures such as a merger or the implementation of a domination and profit transfer agreement, which is necessary to establish a fiscal unity between the acquirer and the target for tax purposes. In the event of a leveraged financing, the 75% threshold is also of specific importance from the perspective of the financing banks, because the most common acquisition structures involve such structural measures in order to allow the provision of upstream security as well as access to the cash flow of the target.
But times have changed dramatically since 2002. Now, we see hedge funds appearing almost immediately on the scene after a takeover is announced. It has therefore become difficult for a bidder to achieve the high acceptance levels of the past. At the same time, financing banks have become comfortable with lending money, even for the acquisition of a 50%-plus-one share stake with a view to more sophisticated debt push-down concepts recently developed, which usually involve a super dividend to be distributed by the target following the takeover. Even more importantly, due to significantly larger private equity funds and strategic investors now having considerable war chests at their disposal, large targets are becoming a greater focus of potential takeovers.
As high market capitalisation typically comes with widely-held stock, a bidder in these cases is not in a position to ensure the acquisition of a majority stake by approaching major shareholders in advance and, thereby, concurrently 'block' the target for other potential bidders.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 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.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 4Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Burr & Forman partner Garry K. Grooms has entered an appearance for 4M Acquisitions and Wallace D. Tweden in a pending environmental lawsuit. The action, filed July 22 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the McKellar Law Group and Mark E. Martin LLC on behalf of Tennessee Riverkeeper, contends that the defendant's violated the Clean Water Act and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act by allowing for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge permit. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, is 3:24-cv-00886, Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Tweden et al.
Who Got The Work
Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Gene W. Lee and Stevan R. Stark of Perkins Coie have entered appearances for R-Pac International in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 12 in New York Southern District Court by PinilisHalpern LLP and Friedman Suder & Cooke on behalf of Adasa Inc, asserts a single patent related to wireless sensors used for tagging products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, is 1:24-cv-06102, Adasa Inc. v. R-Pac International LLC.
Who Got The Work
Walmart has tapped lawyer Nicole M. Wright of Zausmer PC to defend a pending product liability lawsuit. The action was filed Aug. 12 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Wolfe Trial Lawyers on behalf of a plaintiff claiming burns from a defective propane tank. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, is 2:24-cv-12100, Hill v. Ferrellgas, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Kevin Simpson and James Randall of Winston & Strawn have stepped in to represent Comcast in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 11 in Georgia Northern District Court by Kaufman PA, contends that the defendant placed pre-recorded debt collection phone calls to the plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, is 1:24-cv-03553, Pond v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC.
Who Got The Work
Potter Anderson & Corroon partners Christopher N. Kelly and Kevin R. Shannon have stepped in to represent cloud computing company Fastly and its top executives in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 23 in Delaware District Court by deLeeuw Law and Bragar Eagel & Squire on behalf of Mark Sweitzer, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that revenue growth in 2023 was primarily driven by a 'consolidation trend' in which companies simplified operations by reducing the number of content delivery network vendors under management, thereby reducing competition and increasing the defendant's market share. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams, is 1:24-cv-00969, Sweitzer v. Nightingale et al.
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