Takeover proposals set to force corporates to disclose legal fees
Corporate law firms could face increasing scrutiny of their M&A fees as part of proposals by the UK Takeover Code Committee to overhaul merger rules and protect target companies from hostile bids. The proposals - published yesterday (21 October) in response to a consultation carried out after Kraft's controversial takeover of Cadbury - include a suggestion that corporates should disclose a breakdown of estimated fees payable to advisers. This would include fees payable to law firms as well as financial advisers, accountants and PR advisers.
October 22, 2010 at 10:49 AM
3 minute read
Corporate law firms could face increasing scrutiny of their M&A fees as part of proposals by the UK Takeover Code Committee to overhaul merger rules and protect target companies from hostile bids.
The proposals – published yesterday (21 October) in response to a consultation carried out after Kraft's controversial takeover of Cadbury – include a suggestion that corporates should disclose a breakdown of estimated fees payable to advisers.
This would include fees payable to law firms as well as financial advisers, accountants and PR advisers.
The increased transparency on fees is one of a number of changes the committee intends to make to the code following criticism that it has become too easy to mount hostile bids in the UK.
Other significant changes would see the introduction of a cap of just four weeks on the time a bid-vehicle has between announcing an offer and making a firm bid, as well as making it easier for rival bidders to enter a takeover by banning the use of inducement fees. Bid vehicles making an offer will also have to be named at the time of the announcement.
However, several proposals were rejected – including a suggestion to increase the approval required from shareholders to more than 50%.
City corporate lawyers have expressed mixed views about the proposals. Hogan Lovells corporate finance partner Nigel Read (pictured) commented: "My initial feeling is that the new rules might be a bit too tough on the bidders. Four weeks to make a firm offer will be seen as too short and I would not be surprised if this was eventually changed to at least between six or eight weeks."
On fee disclosure, he added: "I think banks, and to some degree law firms as well, will find that it is a competitive disadvantage because clients can look at other deals and ensure they are not being overcharged. I think transparency is always a difficult thing to argue against. It will make it harder for all advisers, but I think this is the way it has to go."
Norton Rose City corporate partner Ian Lopez commented: "Most City practitioners think that takeover rules work well and therefore I think that only tweaking it around the edges is a very measured response. Personally I am glad that they decided against raising the acceptance threshold."
For more, see:
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 AllA&O Shearman, Cleary Gottlieb Act on $700M Dunlop Tire Brand Sale to Japan's Sumitomo
Latham, Simpson Thacher and Brazilian Duo Ride Uptick in LatAm M&A
Kim & Chang, Freshfields, A&O Shearman Take Top Spots for Highest Collective Deal Value as APAC M&A Grew By Just 1% in 2024
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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