Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
DE Court Refuses to Enjoin Stockholder Vote for Alleged Disclosure Violations
Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) practitioners frequently face the vexing issue of whether to include target company financial projections, usually prepared by management but on occasion by outside advisers, in stockholder solicitation materials. This decision often depends not only on whether such projections were furnished to directors, bidders and/or financial advisers, but also on the quality of the projections. Further, it is not unusual to have multiple projections prepared at different times and furnished to different parties for different reasons (i.e., to bidders to induce a higher offer price, to directors to help them assess the company's performance and prospects, and to financial advisers in connection with their fairness analysis of deal terms).
The rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) do not squarely address this issue, leaving it to legal counsel to help the disclosing company make the decision on whether or not to disclose projections. Generally, full projections furnished to the acquiring company are included in tender offer disclosure materials when a tender offer is utilized as the first step in a negotiated two-step transaction. In the case of proxy materials used to solicit stockholder votes in a one-step merger transaction, key line items from projections furnished to the target's financial adviser in connection with its fairness analysis often are included in the proxy statement. Sometimes, if more than one set of projections is available (for instance, management-prepared projections and financial adviser-prepared projections) and they are not consistent, both are included or at least referenced.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.