the mergers & appendix 1 acquisitions about the ......2015/09/24 · adam myers production...
TRANSCRIPT
857
Appendix 1
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
THOMAS SACHERAshurst LLPThomas Sacher is a partner at Ashurst LLP since 1 July 2015. From 1986 through June 2015 Thomas Sacher was a member and, from 1992 through June 2015, partner of another German law firm. He studied law at the universities of Munich and Regensburg and received admission to the Bar in 1986. In 1990 he received a PhD (Dr jur) from the University of Regensburg.
Dr Sacher specialises in the areas of M&A, private equity and venture capital. He advises his national and international clients in a variety of corporate law matters related to domestic and cross-border transactions and provides legal advice on transformations, mergers, formation of joint ventures, stock option plans and other corporate transactions.
ASHURST LLPLudwigstraße 880539 MunichGermanyTel: +49 89 24 44 21 100Fax: +49 89 24 44 21 [email protected]
The Mergers & Acquisitions
Review
Law Business Research
Ninth Edition
Editor
Mark Zerdin
The Mergers & Acquisitions Review
The Mergers & Acquisitions ReviewReproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd.
This article was first published in The Mergers & Acquisitions Review - Edition 9(published in August 2015 – editor Mark Zerdin)
For further information please [email protected]
The Mergers & Acquisitions
Review
Ninth Edition
EditorMark Zerdin
Law Business Research Ltd
PUBLISHER Gideon Roberton
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nick Barette
SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGERS Katherine Jablonowska, Thomas Lee, Felicity Bown
ACCOUNT MANAGER Joel Woods
PUBLISHING MANAGER Lucy Brewer
MARKETING ASSISTANT Rebecca Mogridge
EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Shani Bans
HEAD OF PRODUCTION Adam Myers
PRODUCTION EDITOR Anna Andreoli
SUBEDITOR Hilary Scott
MANAGING DIRECTOR Richard Davey
Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London
87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK© 2015 Law Business Research Ltd
www.TheLawReviews.co.uk No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply.
The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients.
Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided is accurate as of August 2015, be
advised that this is a developing area.Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to Law Business Research, at the
address above. Enquiries concerning editorial content should be directed to the Publisher – [email protected]
ISBN 978-1-909830-62-2
Printed in Great Britain by Encompass Print Solutions, Derbyshire
Tel: 0844 2480 112
THE MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS REVIEW
THE RESTRUCTURING REVIEW
THE PRIVATE COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT REVIEW
THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REVIEW
THE EMPLOYMENT LAW REVIEW
THE PUBLIC COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT REVIEW
THE BANKING REGULATION REVIEW
THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION REVIEW
THE MERGER CONTROL REVIEW
THE TECHNOLOGY, MEDIA AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS REVIEW
THE INWARD INVESTMENT AND INTERNATIONAL TAXATION REVIEW
THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REVIEW
THE CORPORATE IMMIGRATION REVIEW
THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS REVIEW
THE PROJECTS AND CONSTRUCTION REVIEW
THE INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKETS REVIEW
THE REAL ESTATE LAW REVIEW
THE PRIVATE EQUITY REVIEW
THE ENERGY REGULATION AND MARKETS REVIEW
THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REVIEW
THE ASSET MANAGEMENT REVIEW
THE LAW REVIEWS
www.TheLawReviews.co.uk
THE PRIVATE WEALTH AND PRIVATE CLIENT REVIEW
THE MINING LAW REVIEW
THE EXECUTIVE REMUNERATION REVIEW
THE ANTI-BRIBERY AND ANTI-CORRUPTION REVIEW
THE CARTELS AND LENIENCY REVIEW
THE TAX DISPUTES AND LITIGATION REVIEW
THE LIFE SCIENCES LAW REVIEW
THE INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE LAW REVIEW
THE GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT REVIEW
THE DOMINANCE AND MONOPOLIES REVIEW
THE AVIATION LAW REVIEW
THE FOREIGN INVESTMENT REGULATION REVIEW
THE ASSET TRACING AND RECOVERY REVIEW
THE INTERNATIONAL INSOLVENCY REVIEW
THE OIL AND GAS LAW REVIEW
THE FRANCHISE LAW REVIEW
THE PRODUCT REGULATION AND LIABILITY REVIEW
THE SHIPPING LAW REVIEW
THE ACQUISITION AND LEVERAGED FINANCE REVIEW
THE PRIVACY, DATA PROTECTION AND CYBERSECURITY LAW REVIEW
THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP LAW REVIEW
THE TRANSPORT FINANCE LAW REVIEW
THE SECURITIES LITIGATION REVIEW
THE LENDING AND SECURED FINANCE REVIEW
i
The publisher acknowledges and thanks the following law firms for their learned assistance throughout the preparation of this book:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
AABØ-EVENSEN & CO ADVOKATFIRMA
ÆLEX
AGUILAR CASTILLO LOVE
AKD NV
ALLEN & GLEDHILL LLP
ANDERSON MŌRI & TOMOTSUNE
ARIAS, FÁBREGA & FÁBREGA
ASHURST LLP
AZMI & ASSOCIATES
BHARUCHA & PARTNERS
BOWMAN GILFILLAN
BREDIN PRAT
BRIGARD & URRUTIA
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON
CORRS CHAMBERS WESTGARTH
COULSON HARNEY
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Acknowledgements
ii
DELFINO E ASSOCIATI WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
DITTMAR & INDRENIUS
DRYLLERAKIS & ASSOCIATES
ELLEX
FENXUN PARTNERS
HARNEYS
HENGELER MUELLER
HEUKING KÜHN LÜER WOJTEK
ISOLAS
KBH KAANUUN
KEMPHOOGSTAD, S.R.O.
KIM & CHANG
KINSTELLAR, S.R.O., ADVOKÁTNÍ KANCELÁŘ
KLART SZABÓ LEGAL LAW FIRM
LEGAL ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS
LETT LAW FIRM P/S
MAKES & PARTNERS LAW FIRM
MATTOS FILHO, VEIGA FILHO, MARREY JR E QUIROGA ADVOGADOS
MNKS
MORAVČEVIĆ VOJNOVIĆ I PARTNERI IN COOPERATION WITH SCHÖNHERR
MOTIEKA & AUDZEVIČIUS
NISHIMURA & ASAHI
OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP
Acknowledgements
iii
PÉREZ BUSTAMANTE & PONCE
POPOVICI NIȚU & ASOCIAȚII
ROJS, PELJHAN, PRELESNIK & PARTNERS
RUBIO LEGUÍA NORMAND
RUSSIN, VECCHI & HEREDIA BONETTI
S HOROWITZ & CO
SCHELLENBERG WITTMER LTD
SCHINDLER RECHTSANWÄLTE GMBH
SELVAM & PARTNERS
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
SLAUGHTER AND MAY
STRELIA
SYCIP SALAZAR HERNANDEZ & GATMAITAN
TORRES, PLAZ & ARAUJO
URÍA MENÉNDEZ
UTEEM CHAMBERS
VON WOBESER Y SIERRA, SC
WEERAWONG, CHINNAVAT & PEANGPANOR LTD
WH PARTNERS
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
v
Editor’s Preface .................................................................................................xiii Mark Zerdin
Chapter 1 EU OVERVIEW .........................................................................1 Mark Zerdin
Chapter 2 EU COMPETITION OVERVIEW ..........................................11 Götz Drauz and Michael Rosenthal
Chapter 3 EUROPEAN PRIVATE EQUITY .............................................19 Thomas Sacher
Chapter 4 US ANTITRUST ......................................................................32Scott A Sher, Christopher A Williams and Bradley T Tennis
Chapter 5 CROSS-BORDER EMPLOYMENT ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL M&A .......................................................53
Marjorie Culver, Darren Gardner, Ming Henderson, Dominic Hodson and Peter Talibart
Chapter 6 M&A LITIGATION .................................................................67Mitchell A Lowenthal, Roger A Cooper and Matthew Gurgel
Chapter 7 AUSTRALIA .............................................................................74Braddon Jolley, Sandy Mak and Jaclyn Riley-Smith
Chapter 8 AUSTRIA ..................................................................................87Clemens Philipp Schindler
Chapter 9 BAHRAIN ................................................................................97Haifa Khunji and Natalia Kumar
CONTENTS
vi
Contents
Chapter 10 BELGIUM ..............................................................................110Olivier Clevenbergh, Gisèle Rosselle and Carl-Philip de Villegas
Chapter 11 BRAZIL...................................................................................122Moacir Zilbovicius and Rodrigo Ferreira Figueiredo
Chapter 12 BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS ................................................132Jacqueline Daley-Aspinall and Sarah Lou Rockhead
Chapter 13 CANADA ................................................................................143Robert Yalden, Emmanuel Pressman and Jeremy Fraiberg
Chapter 14 CAYMAN ISLANDS ..............................................................158Marco Martins
Chapter 15 CHINA ...................................................................................173Lu Yurui and Ling Qian
Chapter 16 COLOMBIA ...........................................................................187Sergio Michelsen Jaramillo
Chapter 17 COSTA RICA .........................................................................203John Aguilar Jr and Alvaro Quesada
Chapter 18 CYPRUS .................................................................................211Nancy Ch Erotocritou
Chapter 19 CZECH REPUBLIC ...............................................................218Lukáš Ševčík, Jitka Logesová and Bohdana Pražská
Chapter 20 DENMARK ............................................................................225Sebastian Ingversen and Nicholas Lerche-Gredal
Chapter 21 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ....................................................236María Esther Fernández A de Pou, Mónica Villafaña Aquino and Laura Fernández-Peix Perez
vii
Contents
Chapter 22 ECUADOR .............................................................................246Diego Pérez-Ordóñez
Chapter 23 ESTONIA ...............................................................................257Sven Papp and Sven Böttcher
Chapter 24 FINLAND...............................................................................269Jan Ollila, Wilhelm Eklund and Jasper Kuhlefelt
Chapter 25 FRANCE .................................................................................281Didier Martin and Hubert Zhang
Chapter 26 GERMANY .............................................................................296Heinrich Knepper
Chapter 27 GIBRALTAR ...........................................................................309Steven Caetano
Chapter 28 GREECE .................................................................................321Cleomenis G Yannikas, Sophia K Grigoriadou and Vassilis S Constantinidis
Chapter 29 HONG KONG .......................................................................334Jason Webber
Chapter 30 HUNGARY .............................................................................344Levente Szabó and Klaudia Ruppl
Chapter 31 ICELAND ...............................................................................360Hans Henning Hoff
Chapter 32 INDIA .....................................................................................368Justin Bharucha
Chapter 33 INDONESIA ..........................................................................386Yozua Makes
Contents
viii
Chapter 34 ISRAEL ...................................................................................400Clifford Davis and Keith Shaw
Chapter 35 ITALY ......................................................................................410Maurizio Delfino
Chapter 36 JAPAN .....................................................................................422Hiroki Kodate and Masami Murano
Chapter 37 KENYA ...................................................................................431Joyce Karanja-Ng’ang’a, Wathingira Muthang’ato and Felicia Solomon Nyale
Chapter 38 KOREA ...................................................................................442Jong Koo Park, Bo Yong Ahn, Sung Uk Park and Young Min Lee
Chapter 39 LITHUANIA ..........................................................................457Giedrius Kolesnikovas and Michail Parchimovič
Chapter 40 LUXEMBOURG ....................................................................465Marie-Béatrice Noble, Raquel Guevara, Stéphanie Antoine
Chapter 41 MALAYSIA .............................................................................479Rosinah Mohd Salleh and Norhisham Abd Bahrin
Chapter 42 MALTA ...................................................................................491James Scicluna
Chapter 43 MAURITIUS ..........................................................................503Muhammad Reza Cassam Uteem and Basheema Farreedun
Chapter 44 MEXICO ................................................................................513Luis Burgueño and Andrés Nieto
Chapter 45 MONTENEGRO ...................................................................523Slaven Moravčević and Dijana Grujić
Contents
ix
Chapter 46 MYANMAR ............................................................................533Krishna Ramachandra and Benjamin Kheng
Chapter 47 NETHERLANDS ...................................................................544Carlos Pita Cao and François Koppenol
Chapter 48 NIGERIA ................................................................................557Lawrence Fubara Anga
Chapter 49 NORWAY ...............................................................................562Ole K Aabø-Evensen
Chapter 50 PANAMA ................................................................................600Andrés N Rubinoff
Chapter 51 PERU ......................................................................................611Emil Ruppert
Chapter 52 PHILIPPINES .........................................................................621Rafael A Morales, Philbert E Varona, Hiyasmin H Lapitan and Patricia A Madarang
Chapter 53 PORTUGAL ...........................................................................630Francisco Brito e Abreu and Joana Torres Ereio
Chapter 54 ROMANIA .............................................................................643Andreea Hulub, Ana-Maria Mihai and Vlad Ambrozie
Chapter 55 RUSSIA ...................................................................................657Scott Senecal, Yulia Solomakhina, Polina Tulupova, Yury Babichev and Alexander Mandzhiev
Chapter 56 SERBIA ...................................................................................675Matija Vojnović and Luka Lopičić
Chapter 57 SINGAPORE ..........................................................................685Lim Mei and Lee Kee Yeng
Contents
x
Chapter 58 SLOVENIA .............................................................................694David Premelč, Bojan Šporar and Mateja Ščuka
Chapter 59 SOUTH AFRICA ...................................................................705Ezra Davids and Ashleigh Hale
Chapter 60 SPAIN .....................................................................................716Christian Hoedl and Javier Ruiz-Cámara
Chapter 61 SWITZERLAND ....................................................................732Lorenzo Olgiati, Martin Weber, Jean Jacques Ah Choon, Harun Can and David Mamane
Chapter 62 THAILAND ...........................................................................745Pakdee Paknara and Pattraporn Poovasathien
Chapter 63 TURKEY .................................................................................753Emre Akın Sait
Chapter 64 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES..................................................762DK Singh and Stincy Mary Joseph
Chapter 65 UNITED KINGDOM ...........................................................774Mark Zerdin
Chapter 66 UNITED STATES ..................................................................793Richard Hall and Mark Greene
Chapter 67 VENEZUELA .........................................................................834Guillermo de la Rosa, Juan D Alfonzo, Nelson Borjas E, Pedro Durán A and Maritza Quintero M
Chapter 68 VIETNAM ..............................................................................847Hikaru Oguchi, Taro Hirosawa, Ha Hoang Loc
Contents
xi
Appendix 1 ABOUT THE AUTHORS .....................................................857
Appendix 2 CONTRIBUTING LAW FIRMS’ CONTACT DETAILS .....905
xiii
EDITOR’S PREFACE
By a number of measures, it could be argued that it has been some time since the outlook for the M&A market looked healthier. The past year has seen a boom in deal making, with many markets seeing post-crisis peaks and some recording all-time highs. Looking behind the headline figures, however, a number of factors suggest deal making may not continue to grow as rapidly as it has done recently.
One key driver affecting global figures is the widely expected rise of US interest rates. Cheap debt has played a significant part in the surge of US deal making in the first few months of 2015, and the prospects of a rate rise may have some dampening effects. However, the most recent indications from the Federal Reserve have suggested that any rise will be gradual and some market participants have pushed back predictions for the first rate rise to December 2015. Meanwhile, eurozone and UK interest rates look likely to remain low for some time further.
The eurozone returned to the headlines in June as the prospect of a Greek exit looked increasingly real. Even assuming Greece remains in the euro (as now seems likely), the crisis has severely damaged the relationship between Greece and its creditors. The brinksmanship exhibited by all parties means that meaningful progress cannot occur except at the conclusion of a crisis: the idea that reform will benefit Greece has been lost and each measure extracted by creditors is couched as a concession. However, while the political debate has become ever more fractious, the market’s response to the crisis has been relatively sanguine. This is largely a result of the fact that the volume of Greek debt is no longer in the market, but in the hands of institutions. But it is also a sign of the general market recovery and expectations that major economies will continue to grow.
Perhaps one of the more interesting emerging trends in the last year is the interplay between growth and productivity. Some commentators have suggested that the recent rise in deal making is a symptom of a climate in which businesses remain reluctant to invest in capital and productivity. Pessimistic about the opportunities for organic growth, companies instead seek to grow profits through cost savings on mergers. It is difficult to generalise about such matters: inevitably, deal drivers will vary from industry to industry, from market to market. However, if synergies have been the principal motivation in
Editor’s Preface
xiv
much of the year’s deal making (it certainly has been in a number of large-cap deals) then it may be that the market is a little farther from sustainable growth than some would like to think.
I would like to thank the contributors for their support in producing the ninth edition of The Mergers & Acquisitions Review. I hope that the commentary in the following chapters will provide a richer understanding of the shape of the global markets, together with the challenges and opportunities facing market participants.
Mark ZerdinSlaughter and MayLondonAugust 2015
544
Chapter 47
NETHERLANDS
Carlos Pita Cao and François Koppenol1
I OVERVIEW OF M&A ACTIVITY
Although the total amount involved and the number of deals over 2014 as a whole compared to 2013 did not change much in 2014, an upward trend was seen in the second half of 2014. In addition, the stock market Euronext Amsterdam had a good year, with five IPOs compared with none in 2013, which generated approximately US$8 billion.
The majority of deals were in the heavy industry, a quarter of which were in the metal and automotive sectors. Nearly one-third of the deals took place in the services sector, especially in automation. In addition, there were many deals in the trade and non-profit sectors.
The Dutch M&A market continued to show signs of recovery in 2014 and expectations for next year are good. Cheap financing available through the capital market, large cash positions of companies and rising valuations are considered the main reasons for the positive forecasts.
II GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR M&A
The Dutch legal system is based on civil law, as in most of continental Europe. The Dutch Civil Code contains the most important rules for M&A transactions.
Based on long-standing case law, as a general rule for contract interpretation it is key what parties meant and could expect.2 However, more recent case law on the subject focused on the importance of the literal meaning of the words in a contract in a
1 Carlos Pita Cao and François Koppenol are partners at AKD N.V.2 Hoge Raad, 13 March 1981 (Haviltex).
Netherlands
545
professional environment, such as M&A practice. Consequently, contracts have become more extensive over the years and are moving towards Anglo-American standards.3
Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that commercial contracts should still be interpreted according to what parties meant and could expect, but the literal meaning is a starting point to document and evidence the intentions of those parties. So although great significance must be attributed to the contractual wording, the parties’ statements and conduct before the signing of an agreement can lead to the conclusion that the parties still meant something different from the literal wording. Consequently, documenting the whole process of a transaction remains important.4 In 2013 the Supreme Court also ruled that an ‘entire agreement clause’ as has become common to include in Dutch M&A contracts, does not change this as it would relate to the content of the agreement between the parties and not the interpretation of that content.
i Pre-contractual good faith
Pursuant to standard case law, if parties enter into negotiations, their relationship is governed by the principle of reasonableness and fairness (i.e., ‘good faith’). As a consequence, each party has the obligation to take into account the reasonable interests of the others during negotiations. Based on the principle of freedom of contract, which is another key principle relating to agreements under Dutch law, parties are free to withdraw from negotiations. However, based on the principle of reasonableness and fairness, pre-contractual good faith is deemed to exist between two negotiating parties. As a result, the Dutch Supreme Court has ruled that, at a certain stage in the negotiations, the parties cannot terminate the negotiations without being obliged to compensate the other party for its costs, and, in certain circumstances, even its loss of profits.5 In addition, it may be possible to obtain an injunction requiring the other party to continue negotiations.
ii Notifications during the transaction
In the Netherlands, it is important that the parties meet the following notification requirements during a transaction process:a the notification of the proposed transaction with the respective party’s works
council so as to take its advice, which must be taken into consideration by the respective parties to the transaction;
b the notification of the envisaged transaction with the relevant trade unions and the Social and Economic Council (SER) so as to obtain the views of the trade unions and the SER on the proposed transaction;
c the notification of the transaction with the Netherlands Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM) for obtaining merger clearance (to the extent the transaction is not subject to EU Merger Control Regulation) as set out below in paragraph IX; and
3 Hoge Raad, 19 January 2007 (Meyer Europe BV/PontMeyer BV).4 Hoge Raad 5 April 2013 (Lundiform/Mexx).5 Hoge Raad 18 June 1982 (Plas/Valburg).
Netherlands
546
d in certain industries specific regulators may have to be informed or even consent to the transaction, such as the Dutch Central Bank, Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) and Public Health Authority.
As for public and M&A transactions it should be noted that the Netherlands has adopted the opt-out arrangements provided for in the EU Takeover Directive. In consequence, companies that are registered in the Netherlands may in principle apply defensive measures to ward off a takeover bid. The purpose of this directive is the protection of minority shareholders.
In addition to the relevant provisions in the Civil Code, the rules to be observed in the context of a public bid are set out in the Euronext Rulebook and the Dutch Financial Supervision Act, which is set out in more detail in the Decree on Public Bids.
III DEVELOPMENTS IN CORPORATE AND TAKEOVER LAW AND THEIR IMPACT
i Simplification of private company law
On 1 October 2012, the Act on the Simplification and Flexibilisation of Private Company Law took effect. This Act aims to create a simple and flexible legal framework for private companies with limited liability in the form of a BV. As set out in Paragraph VI this has affected the way private M&A transactions are financed. More than two years into this legislation, some case law has emerged, but nothing quite significant yet. As expected, alower court has ruled that matters that took place before the change of legislation should be assessed under the law that was applicable then.6 As a result these former rules and case law remains relevant for the years to come.
ii The Clawback of Bonuses Act
On 1 January 2014, the Clawback of Bonuses Act took effect making the clawback of excessive bonuses of directors of public companies (NVs) and the day-to-day policy makers of financial institutions such as banks and investment firms possible.
The Act will make it possible to revise a yet unpaid bonus that has been awarded to a director to an appropriate amount if, according to standards of reasonableness and fairness, payment of the bonus would be unacceptable. The Act will also make it possible to claw back a bonus paid to a director if it has been paid based on incorrect information. The Act also applies to shares or options forming part of a directors’ pay.
iii The AIFMD
On 22 July 2013, the Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive (AIFMD) took effect. In the Netherlands, this directive is incorporated into the Dutch Financial Supervision Act. As a result, private equity and venture capital firms are supervised by the Authority for the Financial Markets and the Dutch Central Bank. Depending on the
6 Rechtbank Gelderland 17 February 2014.
Netherlands
547
size of the assets under management either a relatively light regime or a full-compliance regime will apply. Included are also fund managers who solely offer participation rights to qualified investors and who were excepted of the supervision before the incorporation of this directive.
IV FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT IN M&A TRANSACTIONS
International interest continued to rise in 2014. Transaction activity was dominated by cross-border transactions. Stock markets are open, the high-yield bond market is doing well and institutional investors consequently had acquisition funds available. Foreign investors tend to be particularly interested in larger, more liquid deals. The largest investors in the Netherlands have traditionally been from its neighbouring countries and from the United States. One of the most striking deals was the acquisition of Ziggo NV from Ziggo shareholders by US-based Liberty Global for an amount of US$10 billion. After EU competition approval Ziggo was taken of the Amsterdam stock exchange. Asian buyers have, however, been active in 2014 as well, examples of these activities being the acquisition of 29 per cent in the Dutch insurer NN Group by the Singaporean investment companies RRJ Capital, Temasek and SeaTown for an amount of US$1.3 billion and the acquisition of the pasta sauce division of Ragu and Bertolli in the United States from Unilever by the Japanese Mizka for an amount of US$1.8 billion.
Chinese buyers have also been focusing on the Netherlands over these last years, and 2014 confirmed this with a total amount of investments of US$2.3 billion from China.
V SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS, KEY TRENDS AND HOT INDUSTRIES
There have been some appealing and significant transactions in the year 2014. Klépierre, a retail real estate player based in France acquired Corio NV, a Dutch-based real estate investment company that owns and manages shopping centres from the Corio Shareholders for an amount of US$7.2 billion. An investor group acquired a stake in the oil and gas company Woodside Petroleum Ltd from Royal Dutch Shell. Anheuser-Busch InBev (AB InBev) reacquired through its subsidiary Interbrew International BV Oriental Brewery from Silenus Holding BV for US$5.8 billion.
The key trends in the deal market can be found in several different sectors. There is an increase of property investors in the Netherlands. German investors and investors from other countries around the Netherlands are watching the real estate market closely. The interest rates are low and the return on shares is moderate. In the bigger cities it is still deemed possible to make an appropriate return on property. In addition there is an increase of activities in health care. An aging population, indicating demand for care, on the one hand and technological development on the other hand, is an attractive market for investors. Another big trend is the growing number of transactions in the oil and gas market. There is a lot of movement in this sector. The increase in acquisitions also involves major technological developments in the sector. Therefore also a lot transactions and investments are made in the relevant, accompanying technologies. The Netherlands
Netherlands
548
has a large number of internationally acclaimed suppliers to the oil and gas industry. These are attractive takeover prospects for foreign companies and investors. Also for the Dutch companies there are many opportunities in this industry. Pharma, medical and biotech sectors stood out in terms of activity, where Royal Philips NV acquired Volcano Corp, a global player in catheter-based imaging and measurement solutions for cardiovascular applications from Volcano Corp shareholders. Meanwhile, the industrials and chemicals, and consumer sectors led the way in terms of outbound activity. Dutch companies were active in these international deals, with for example the acquiring of Empaque – Heineken’s Mexican packaging business from Heineken by Crown Holdings Inc. The deal was valued at an enterprise value of US$1.2 billion.
VI FINANCING OF M&A: MAIN SOURCES AND DEVELOPMENTS
i Sources M&A financing
In addition to strategic buyers, private equity and venture capital are the main sources of M&A funding. Banks are increasingly interested and are regaining their role in the third-party financing of larger M&A and private equity transactions, but the number of alternative forms of financing, especially in the mid-market, continues to grow.
Crowd funding is continuing to increase in popularity and is growing in terms of transaction size where it is used. Both early-stage and late-stage ventures that meet certain requirements can apply for specific state loans that are known as ‘credit for innovation’. These loans are risk bearing to some extent, require no collateral and do not have strict repayment and interest conditions.
In larger transactions LMA documentation is common, but financing of smaller amounts is often based on templates of the relevant bank.
ii Structure bank finance
When there are one or more banks involved, depending on the size of the deal, the loans are divided into separate facilities that often include an amortising loan, a bullet loan and a working capital facility. If more than one bank is involved one of the banks will act as a security agent that holds the collateral for the full debt. The borrower consequently owes the full debt to the security agent and also owes each of the banks the part of the debt corresponding with their participation in the financing. A payment to the security agent will reduce each bank debt accordingly. This typically Dutch ‘parallel debt’ is used because the concept of a trust is in principle not recognised in the Netherlands and in order to avoid seniority and execution issues. Also, when a bank transfers its participation in the loan the collateral remains unaffected since it is held by the security agent.
iii Financial assistance
Targets are usually public companies (NVs) and private companies (BVs).Before the introduction of the simplification of the private company law (see
Paragraph II) financial assistance was not allowed for BVs and NVs. Some forms of lending taking into account the free distributable reserves were allowed, but no security or guarantees could be given. However, case law provides for an NV to attract financing
Netherlands
549
with collateral for the payment of a dividend that may then be used for the acquisition. This effectively allows for a debt pushdown up to that amount.
The restriction has been completely lifted for BVs, but remains in place for NVs. A workaround can be found for non-listed NVs by converting them into a BV. Although there are no longer financial assistance rules to abide by in case of a BV, the board has the continuing duty to only act in the company’s interest, which may affect their willingness to cooperate with the financial assistance. Also, if this would prejudice the position of other creditors the collateral may be voided by those creditors or a trustee in bankruptcy in certain circumstances. In practice the board and, in the case of a non-listed company, the shareholders, adopt a resolution that entails that the transaction and the financial assistance is beneficial to the company to mitigate these risks.
VII EMPLOYMENT LAW
i The Works Councils Act
The Dutch Works Councils Act (WCA) stipulates that a company’s management must grant its works council, which any company employing more than 50 persons should have, an opportunity to render advice on – inter alia – an envisaged transaction.
The advice must be requested in writing at such a point in time that works council’s advice may have significant influence on the intended decision. The works council will often not render its advice upon the proposed decision, until there has been at least one consultation meeting with the entrepreneur on the subject.
Unless the management decision corresponds with the advice given by the works council, the employer is obligated to suspend the implementation of its decision within one month after it has notified the works council of its decision.
During this one-month waiting period, the works council has the possibility to submit an appeal with the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal if the decision is not in accordance with the advice of the works council; or facts or circumstances have become known that, if known by the works council at the time of their advice, would have given them reason to provide different advice.
The Enterprise Chamber may rule that the entrepreneur has to reverse its decision in whole or in part and that the effects of the decision are to be undone.
ii The SER Merger Code 2000
The SER Merger Code 2000 (the Merger Code) is a code of conduct for mergers established by the SER, which is a tripartite advisory council to the government.
The Merger Code is aimed at the protection of the interests of employees in the event of a merger.
The Merger Code has no legal foundation, nor is it based on any statutory power of the SER. Not being law, it essentially has no binding force. In the event of infringement of the Merger Code, the Merger Committee established by the Merger Code may, however, make a public statement of censure or a public announcement. Since its existence, the Merger Code has been complied with, apart from a few exceptions that have generally received extensive and negative publicity.
Netherlands
550
The Merger Code requires the parties to a merger to notify the trade unions involved in the merger, as well as the Secretary of the SER. The Merger Code defines a merger as a direct or indirect acquisition of, or transfer of, control over a company or a part of a company, or the formation of a group of companies. The obligations set forth in the Merger Code may apply to both the acquiring company and the company being acquired, but the Merger Code explicitly does not apply to intra-group transactions.
Scope of applicationThe rules of conduct of the Merger Code shall be observed:a in any merger involving an enterprise established in the Netherlands and regularly
employing at least 50 employees; orb in any merger involving an enterprise belonging to a group of enterprises where
the enterprises established in the Netherlands together regularly employ at least 50 employees.
It should be noted that the Merger Code refers to ‘enterprise’ and not to company. The legal form of the enterprise is not relevant as regards the application of the Merger Code.
NotificationIf the Merger Code applies, the merging companies have the obligation to notify the trade unions and the SER before making any public announcement on the merger or on the intention to merge. These notifications must be done at such a point in time that the opinion of the trade unions on the proposed merger is capable of having a substantial effect on the final decision of the parties in respect of the merger (including the terms of the merger).
In the notification, the management boards of the companies involved must disclose and explain to the reasons for the merger, their intentions as to the company policy to be followed as a result of the merger, the social, economic and legal consequences expected on account of the merger and any intended measures to be taken in relation thereto.
Following the notification, the companies involved must allow the trade unions the opportunity to discuss these matters, including the measures that will be taken to mitigate any potentially negative consequences of the merger for the employees involved.
iii Revision
The SER has concluded that, since the most recent revision of the Merger Code in 2000, certain problem areas have arisen. In early 2014, the SER appointed a committee to revise the Merger Code and to resolve identified problem areas. According to the SER, the relevant problem areas relate to the current stronger market conditions in industries that were historically part of government or the non-profit sector. Governmental authorities, non-profit organisations, but also liberal professions – such as lawyers – currently do not fall within the scope of the Merger Code. The conclusions of the committee are expected in 2015.
Netherlands
551
iv Transfer of undertaking
The concept of transfer of undertaking, as set forth in Directive 2001/23/EU has been implemented in Dutch law in section 7:662 et seq of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC). Pursuant to section 7:663 DCC and 7:662 subsection 2 DCC, a transfer of (part of an) undertaking is defined as ‘a transfer following an agreement, a merger or a legal separation of an economic entity which retains its identity after the transfer’. Consequently, a transfer qualifies as a transfer of undertaking if three conditions are met: there must be a transfer, either on the basis of a contract, a legal merger or legal separation, of an economic unity that retains its identity following the transfer.
Contract, legal merger or legal separationOn the basis of Dutch Law, the transfer has to be based on a contract between parties, a legal merger or a legal separation. It should however be noted that this condition has been subject to a certain degree of corrosion, as the application of the rules governing the transfer of undertaking have been applied in instances where there was no contract between the transferring company and the acquiring company, but the transfer was deemed to have taken place ‘in the context of contractual relations’.
Economic unityAn ‘economic entity’ is defined as a unity of organised means, meant to implement (mainly) an economic activity. Case law distinguishes roughly between two sectors, the labour-intensive and capital-intensive sectors. Whether a company belongs to one or the other sector depends on whether labour is an essential element of the activities of the company.
Retention of identityThe economic unity – or business – that is transferred needs to retain its identity. This is a condition that depends on the circumstances of the specific case. As a guideline, the identity of the economic unity will generally be retained when the activities are virtually continued as if nothing had changed since the transfer or when the activities are continued after a short break.
ConsequencesIf the conditions above are met, the employees working in the business that is transferred will enter into the employment of the acquirer of the business by operation of law. All rights and obligations under the employment agreements between the transferor and its employees transfer by operation of law to the acquiring company. The acquiring company will consequently have to continue applying all terms and conditions of employment – including wages, bonuses, seniority – that the employees had during their employment with the transferring company.
If part of a business is transferred, the employees that work for that specific part of the business transfer to the acquiring company. The remainder of the employees will stay with the transferring company. This generally constitutes no problems for employees that only work for the transferred part of the business. However, that does not imply that support staff that works for the entire company will not have to be employed by
Netherlands
552
the acquiring company. The specific circumstances of the case determine whether the support staff has to be employed by the acquiring company in the case of a transfer of undertaking.
Furthermore, based on case law, it is not possible to harmonise the terms and conditions of employment directly after the transfer of undertaking. This, however, is not an everlasting prohibition and it is possible to harmonise the terms and conditions of employment at a certain point in time.
There is a general prohibition against terminating employment contracts on account of a transfer of undertaking. Only if the employer can provide evidence of economic, technical or organisational reasons (ETO reasons) will the termination of employment contracts be considered. Whether or not any ETO reasons exist will depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
Specific rulesIn deviation of the general rule that all rights and obligations under the employment agreements between the transferor and its employees transfer by operation of law to the acquiring company, specific rules exist with respect to the transfer of pension entitlements. Similarly, specific rules exist regarding the transfer of collective employment terms and conditions.
v The Dutch Work and Security Act
With the introduction of the Work and Security Act (WWZ) Dutch employment law is amended on several points. As of 1 July 2015 also the formulation and the procedure for the termination of employment contracts changed. How an employer may terminate an employment contract depends on the reason of termination. Dismissal for business economic reasons and after long-term disability will be assessed by the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV). Dismissal related to inadequate performance, culpable acts, omissions by the employee or other personal reasons will be submitted to the court.
The WWZ introduces a transition payment. Until 1 July 2015 it was common practice to use the District Court Formula as a guideline for determining termination severances. The transition payment is substantially lower than severances based on the District Court Formula. It is expected that termination costs will reduce as a consequence thereof.
With the introduction of the WWZ references in purchase agreements concluded under the former legislation to certain principles of law and in particular agreements with management may have become unclear in their effect, for example, good and bad leaver clauses triggered by a certain legal reason of dismissal that no longer exists.
For collective dismissals, specific rules apply. In the event that an employer wishes to dismiss at least 20 employees for economic reasons, it is required to comply with the Dutch Collective Redundancy (Notification) Act (WMCO).
Pursuant to the WMCO, an employer who intends to dismiss at least 20 employees within the same Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) area within a period of three months has the obligation to notify its intention of a collective dismissal in a timely manner to the UWV and the relevant trade unions in writing. The trade unions must be informed of the proposed redundancies and be invited to a meeting with the employer.
Netherlands
553
The obligation to notify and to supply additional information provides trade unions with the opportunity to start negotiations with the employer regarding the necessity of the collective dismissal and possible stipulations or redundancy schemes.
If a works council has been established, it will be requested to give its advice pursuant to article 25 of the WCA.
Upon receipt of the notification, the UWV will assess whether all required information has been submitted and whether the works council and the trade unions have been properly informed. Subsequently, a waiting period of one month needs to be complied with, during which the employer may not effectuate any contemplated dismissals. The waiting period may, however, be waived by the trade unions.
Proportionality principleIn the event of a collective dismissal, the Dutch Dismissals Decree should be taken into account as well.
Article 16 Dismissal Regulations sets forth the ‘proportionality principle’, pursuant to which redundancies must affect all age groups of the employed staff equally. The employer has the obligation to take this principle into consideration when it selects the employees to be made redundant. On the basis of the proportionality principle, employees who hold interchangeable positions are divided into age groups, within which it is necessary to determine which employees entered the company’s employment most recently. The ‘last in, first out’ principle determines the order of dismissal. Employees with the shortest length of service per category are selected to be dismissed first.
VIII TAX LAW
M&A transactions structured as share purchase transactions are generally Dutch tax neutral and are therefore often preferred from a seller’s perspective. Share purchases generally do not attract Dutch transfer taxes, stamp duties or VAT. Capital gains on such transactions are usually not subject to Dutch taxation. Ordinarily, the tax basis of the target’s assets and liabilities is not affected by a sale and transfer of its shares.
By contrast, an asset purchase generally triggers taxable capital gains for the seller and results in a step-up of the tax basis of the assets for the purchaser. In view of this, purchasers may prefer an asset purchase over a share purchase. Under certain circumstances, an asset purchase may, however, also be preferable from a seller’s point of view, for example if assets are sold at a loss or if the seller has losses to offset a capital gain.
An asset purchase generally does not attract Dutch transfer taxes, stamp duties or VAT, except for a transfer of Dutch real estate that is subject to a 6 per cent real estate transfer tax, which may also apply to a share deal if a legal entity’s only asset is real estate.
The statutory withholding tax rate is 15 per cent, which under certain circumstances may be reduced. For instance, a zero per cent rate is applicable with respect to payments made to corporate shareholders established in the EU or the EEA holding 5 per cent or more of the shares in the distributing entity. Qualifying shareholdings are exempted from tax on capital gains. With certain de minimis thresholds excessive costs on loans and certain related expenses are not deductible, however, there are no other thin capitalisation rules in place any more.
Netherlands
554
In the international tendency to suppress low-tax structures by multinationals, the Dutch Supreme Court recently dismissed a tax structure in which companies deducted the interest paid in the Netherlands to a subsidiary in Mauritius from the profit tax while the interest was not taxed in Mauritius.7 The implications of this ruling are heavily debated.
IX COMPETITION LAW
i The Dutch Competition Act
The Dutch Competition Act (DCA) provides a system of merger control for operations that affect the Dutch economy. It incorporates and largely copies the system of European merger control and prohibits mergers that create or strengthen a dominant position resulting in a significant restriction of effective competition on the Dutch market or a part thereof.
ii Concentration
The provisions regarding merger control set forth in the DCA apply to mergers, acquisitions, public bids and all other transactions that may bring about a concentration. The concept of a concentration is defined along the lines of the rules developed by the European Commission in the context of EC concentration control. Consequently, concentrations shall be deemed to arise where:a two or more previously independent undertakings merge; b one or more persons or legal entities already controlling at least one undertaking,
or one or more undertakings acquire, whether by purchase of securities or assets, by contract or by other means, direct or indirect control of the whole or parts of one or more other undertakings; or
c a full-function joint venture is established.
iii Turnover thresholds
A concentration that meets certain thresholds as regards the turnover of the undertakings concerned will have to be notified to the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM). A concentration remaining below the threshold turnover levels may be effectuated without a notification to the ACM.
Section 29 DCA provides that a concentration must be notified to the ACM if:a the combined turnover of all undertakings concerned exceeds €150 million in the
calendar year preceding the concentration; andb at least two undertakings concerned each achieved a turnover of at least €30 million
in the Netherlands.
7 Hoge Raad 5 June 2015.
Netherlands
555
iv Alternative thresholds for specific industry sectors
Notwithstanding the general thresholds set out above, alternative thresholds exist for undertakings in certain specific industry sectors. Such specific thresholds apply to concentrations in – for instance – the health-care sector, which is a sector that has recently seen substantial M&A activity in the Netherlands.
A concentration between at least two health-care undertakings must be notified to the ACM if:a the combined turnover of all undertakings concerned exceeds €55 million in the
calendar year preceding the concentration; andb at least two of the undertakings concerned each achieved at least €10 million in
the Netherlands, of which at least €5.5 million turnover is achieved by providing health care.
These sector-specific thresholds have been implemented due to the fact that the Dutch health-care market is a fast-changing market and is deemed to require specific attention to prevent a concentration from creating or strengthening a dominant position. The thresholds are intended to be temporary and will apply until at least 1 January 2018.
Specific rules also apply to concentrations involving insurance companies and for credit and financial institutions within the meaning of the Dutch Financial Supervision Act.
v Assessment in two phases
The process with the ACM is divided into two phases, the first being the assessment by the ACM on whether a licence is required, which has a filing fee of €17,450. If a licence is required the second phase is entered, which has a filing fee of €34,900. If no licence is required the transaction can be executed.
vi Sanctions
A concentration that has been effectuated without having been duly notified or without the waiting period having been observed will be regarded as being null and void under the laws of the Netherlands.
In addition, the ACM has wide powers to impose fines and orders in the context of concentration control. Failure to notify a concentration will usually lead to a fine upon discovery by the ACM. Fines may run up to 10 per cent of the worldwide turnover in the year preceding the year of the fine. Moreover, the ACM may order injunctive measures or may impose periodic penalties in order to force the undertakings concerned to remedy their infringement of the law on both the companies and the directors involved.
vii Exemptions standstill period
A number of exceptions can apply to the prohibition on implementing a concentration prior to clearance from the ACM. In the event of a public takeover bid, the prohibition does not apply, provided that the bid is immediately notified to the ACM and the acquirer does not – without the prior approval of the ACM – exercise the voting rights attached to the share capital until the ACM has assessed the transaction.
Netherlands
556
The ACM can also grant an exemption from the standstill obligation if the waiting period would seriously jeopardise the concentration, for instance, in the event of a relaunch of a business following bankruptcy.
X OUTLOOK
A glance ahead suggests that quite a number of deals are either in progress or planned, according to current intelligence. Furthermore it is likely that the pace with which deals are done will continue to increase. While the Dutch M&A market as a whole is expected to grow, the Dutch property market and health-care industry seem to be especially targeted.
857
Appendix 1
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
CARLOS PITA CAOAKD NVCarlos Pita Cao obtained his MA in European and International Law at the Catholic University in Brabant, and completed the post-graduate study programme in EC Competition Law at King’s College London.
Carlos works at the corporate law and M&A practice group of AKD, where he concentrates primarily on national and international mergers and takeovers, management buyouts, joint ventures, shareholders’ agreements, partnerships, commercial contracting, corporate recovery and providing general advice for Dutch and foreign companies. He frequently works in a multidisciplinary context for both national and international clients.
Carlos speaks fluent Spanish and English.
FRANÇOIS KOPPENOLAKD NVFrançois Koppenol obtained his MA at Leiden University. He has been involved in many national and international M&A transactions, which included a great number of private equity deals and venture capital investments. Currently, besides assisting clients on stra-tegic takeovers and buyouts, he regularly advises several Dutch investment funds on their investments and exits. In that setting François also often acts as counsel to sellers.Combining this knowledge with his knowledge and experience in the area of insolvency and restructuring François also advises clients on the various aspects of distressed M&A.
About the Authors
858
AKD NVGustav Mahlerlaan 29701081 AmsterdamNetherlandsTel: +31 88 253 55 89Fax: + 31 88 253 55 [email protected]@akd.nlwww.akd.nl