The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

WORLDWIDE PLAZA, 825 EIGHTH AVENUE, 10019-7475, USA
Tel:
Work +1 212 474 1000
Fax:
Fax +1 212 474 3700
Email:
Web:
www.cravath.com
London, NEW YORK

Richard Hall

Tel:
Work +1 (212) 474-1293
Email:
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

Work Department

Corporate.

Position

Richard Hall is a partner in Cravath’s Corporate Department. His practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance advice and matters relating to activist defense. Mr. Hall is the Head of Cravath’s Mergers and Acquisitions practice for EMEA.

Mr. Hall’s clients have included AngloGold Ashanti Limited, Archer‑Daniels‑Midland Company, AXA, Banco Santander, Barrick Gold Corporation, Brookfield Asset Management, GKN, The Linde Group, Royal Dutch Shell plc, Time Warner Inc., WestRock Company, Weyerhaeuser Company and The Williams Companies, Inc.

Mr. Hall’s recent notable representations include GKN in its pending US$6.1 billion combination of GKN’s Driveline business and Dana, AXA in its pending US$15.3 billion acquisition of XL Group, WestRock Company in its pending US$4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation and its US$2.3 billion acquisition of Multi Packaging Solutions International Limited, Brookfield Asset Management in its US$1.3 billion acquisition of TerraForm Global and its US$3.8 billion acquisition of a controlling stake in TerraForm Power, The Linde Group in its pending US$70 billion merger of equals with Praxair, Inc., The Williams Companies, Inc. in its exploration of strategic alternatives, including its rejection of an unsolicited acquisition proposal and subsequent proposed US$37.7 billion business combination transaction with Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. in its US$21 billion merger with MPLX LP, Delhaize Group in its US$29 billion merger of equals with Royal Ahold N.V., Grupo Villar Mir, SAU and its subsidiary Grupo FerroAtlántica, S.A. in its combination with Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., Rock‑Tenn Company in its US$16 billion combination with MeadWestvaco Corporation, Covance Inc. in its US$6.2 billion sale to Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Life Technologies Corporation in its US$15.8 billion sale to Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., The Linde Group in its US$4.6 billion acquisition of Lincare Holdings Inc. and the special committee of the independent directors of CNH Global N.V. as U.S. counsel in connection with the merger of Fiat Industrial S.p.A. and CNH Global with and into CNH Industrial N.V. Mr. Hall has also acted on behalf of Time Warner Inc. on M&A and regular corporate matters, including its pending merger with AT&T, the unsolicited proposal from Twenty‑First Century Fox, Inc. to acquire Time Warner, its dealings with Carl Icahn and its separations of Time Inc., Time Warner Cable and AOL. He has also acted for Weyerhaeuser on its recent white paper, containerboard, homebuilding and Cellulose Fibers pulp mills divestitures.

Career

Mr. Hall joined Cravath in 1988 and became a partner in 1996.

Mr. Hall has been repeatedly cited as one of the country’s leading practitioners in mergers and acquisitions by, among others, Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business from 2007 through 2018; Chambers Global: The World’s Leading Lawyers for Business from 2007 through 2018; The Legal 500 United States from 2010 through 2017; The Legal 500 Latin America from 2012 through 2017; IFLR1000 from 2005 through 2018; The Best Lawyers in Americafrom 2007 through 2018; The International Who’s Who of Merger & Acquisition Lawyers; and Latin Lawyer 250: Latin America’s Leading Business Law Firms from 2009 through 2016. He was named a “Dealmaker of the Year” by The American Lawyer magazine in 2018 and was recognized by Lawdragon as one of “500 Leading Lawyers in America” from 2011 through 2018. In 2016, Mr. Hall was selected as a Mergers & Acquisitions Trailblazer by The National Law Journal. He has also been named by The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers as one of the ten “Most Highly Regarded Individuals” in mergers and acquisitions as well as corporate governance law. In addition, Cravath’s mergers and acquisitions practice received a high ranking by Chambers for being “knowledgeable and responsive, with excellent levels of service.” Mr. Hall also co‑authored the U.S. section of The Mergers and Acquisitions Review.

Education

Mr. Hall received a B.Comm. with honors in 1984, an LL.B. with honors in 1986 from the University of Melbourne, and an LL.M. from Harvard University in 1988.


Latin America: International firms

Corporate and M&A

Within: Corporate and M&A

A ‘wonderful firm with a stellar reputation’, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP is ‘“go-to” for bet-the-company and big ticket M&A’; considered a true market leader in cross-border M&A, it has considerable experience advising on major transactions involving Latin America. Recent mandates saw the team advise Anheuser-Busch InBev (AB InBev) on its asset swap with Ambev (involving AB InBev transferring SABMiller’s Panamanian business to Ambev, and Ambev transferring its businesses in Colombia, Peru and Ecuador to AB InBev); this is linked to the headline $123bn merger of AB InBev and SABMiller in 2016 in which the firm also advised AB InBev. The team also advised Banco Santander Rio on its acquisition of the on-shore consumer credit card, consumer brokerage and retail banking businesses of Citigroup in Argentina; and assisted Grupo México’s transportation business unit, GMéxico Transportes, with its acquisition of Florida East Coast Railway Holdings. London partner David Mercado is a true Latin America specialist and has decades of experience in the region; while in New York, senior M&A partners including Richard Hall, Craig Arcella, Robert Townsend and Scott Bennett all have significant experience of Latin America transactions, as does Joel Herold in London.

[back to top]

United States: M&A/corporate and commercial

M&A: large deals ($1bn+)

Within: Leading lawyers

Richard Hall - Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

Within: M&A: large deals ($1bn+)

Despite its relatively small size compared to its tier one competitors, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP has a tremendous record in high-profile and complex deals, including transactions for existing and new clients. The M&A practice attracts an impressive number of deals, both at a domestic and international level, and across a variety of industries. Despite not having an extensive international network (its only offices are in New York and London), it continues to work on a multitude of cross-border deals. In 2017, it advised Johnson & Johnson on its $30bn acquisition of Switzerland-based Actelion, a deal which involved Actelion spinning-off its drug discovery operations and early-stage clinical development assets into Idorsia, a newly created Swiss biopharmaceutical company; this was the largest transaction in Johnson & Johnson’s history. The firm continued to advise British American Tobacco on its landmark $97bn merger with Reynolds American, through the acquisition of the remaining 58% stake in the company. In other headline matters, it advised Unilever on the $143bn unsolicited offer from The Kraft Heinz Company to acquire the company; the proposal was subsequently withdrawn. It was also engaged by The Linde Group to advise on its pending $70bn merger of equals with Praxair. The firm’s ‘level of service is exceptional’ and it is ‘a cut above the rest’, according to one client. It ‘tailors guidance appropriately towards lawyers, executives and boards’ and ‘knows the law and business and how the two interact better than anyone’. The firm is awash with senior-level talent, including ‘phenomenal lawyer’ and presiding partner Faiza Saeed, Mark Greene, Richard Hall, Robert Townsend and Damien Zoubek, who ‘commands respect from a room’ and is ‘a real force in driving outcomes both legally and commercially’. George Schoen is an emerging name, having impressed with deals for major clients such as IBM. Thomas Dunn has ‘exceptional judgment’ and Erik Tavzel is also increasingly prominent, and Ting Chen, Aaron Gruber and Keith Hallam are among the next generation of top talent. Eric Schiele moved to Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

[back to top]


IHL Briefings

If your firm wishes to publish IHL Briefings or articles, please contact Antony Dine on +44 (0) 207 396 9315 or antony.dine@legalease.co.uk

 

United States: Mergers & Acquisitions

This country-specific Q&A gives an overview of mergers and acquisition law, the transaction environment and process as well as any special situations that may occur in the United States . It also covers market sectors, regulatory authorities, due diligence, deal protection, public disclosure, governing law, director duties and key factors influencing M&A activity over the next two years. This Q&A is part of the global guide to Mergers & Acquisitions. [Continue Reading]

IHL Briefings

If your firm wishes to publish IHL Briefings or articles, please contact Antony Dine on +44 (0) 207 396 9315 or antony.dine@legalease.co.uk

 

The Hot Topic in United States M&A Corwin

April 2018. By Richard Hall

Introduction The general question of corporate governance can be summarized, in the context of public companies, as three interrelated questions:  who has decision-making authority; how are they constrained in the exercise of that authority; and how are they held accountable for that exercise?  In this model, the U.S. approach to corporate governance has historically been very director-centric.  In a U.S. public company, the board of directors has substantially more power than in any other major developed legal regime and is subject to fewer formal constraints on the exercise of that power.  Not surprisingly, the U.S. approach to corporate governance has developed differently with respect to the means by which boards of directors are held accountable for their decisions.  The U.S. market remains the most active with respect to the three leading structural mechanisms for holding boards of directors accountable:  hostile takeovers, shareholder activism/proxy fights and, last but not least, direct shareholder litigation against boards of directors. While the foregoing is true generally with respect to corporate governance, it is particularly true with respect to M&A.  Almost all developed legal regimes recognize that “M&A is different” and apply distinct rules of corporate governance to the behavior of boards of directors of target companies in the context of M&A.  The most well known model is the U.K. Takeover Code, from which the European Takeover Directive was heavily drawn and which also significantly influenced the takeover codes in other Commonwealth countries.  A central premise of the U.K. Takeover Code is “passivity”:  it takes power away from the board of directors of a target company. In the U.S., while the challenge created by corporate governance in the M&A environment has been recognized, the model of director-centric corporate governance has not been abandoned.  Instead, the preexisting structures for holding boards of directors accountable are applied with greater force, in particular, judicial supervision of the conduct of boards of directors exercised through private litigation.  As is well known and documented, the U.S. is home to substantially more M&A-related shareholder litigation that calls into question the behavior of the boards of directors of U.S. companies.  In the context of M&A litigation, the Delaware courts have traditionally been reluctant to give effect to any principle of “stockholder ratification”.  This has been based in part on a theoretical model, in which the Delaware courts have noted that directors have their own duties and that the mere fact a majority of the stockholders support a particular transaction does not speak to whether the directors have discharged their duties in proposing that transaction.  In addition, the Delaware courts have been concerned by a conceptual problem with the principle of stockholder ratification, as applied in the M&A context.  A stockholder vote on a proposed M&A transaction is a binary choice between the transaction, as negotiated by the board of directors, and no transaction at all.  It is seldom the case that the stockholders have the ability to send the board of directors back to “try again”; accordingly, a vote by the stockholders to approve a particular transaction cannot as a substantive matter be viewed as the equivalent of stockholder agreement with the proposition that the transaction before them was properly negotiated by a careful and loyal board of directors. From time to time, the Delaware courts have shown deference to the will of the stockholders.  For example, outside the area of conflicted transactions, there is no known example of a Delaware court permanently enjoining a proposed M&A transaction as a result of alleged misbehavior by the board of directors of the target corporation other than in the context of a competing bid for the target company.  However, over the last several years there have been three different series of decisions in the Delaware courts that, taken as a whole, seem to reflect a more significant judicial shift in approach to the U.S. director-centric model. MFW The first line of cases relates to a transaction in which a majority stockholder buys out the minority stockholders (a “squeeze out”).  As a result of judicial concern regarding fair treatment of stockholders in squeeze out transactions, in the 1980s and early 1990s the Delaware courts developed the “entire fairness” standard of judicial review, under which, in a squeeze out, the controlling stockholder and the board of directors of the target company were subject to strict judicial scrutiny focused on whether the squeeze out involved a “fair process” and offered minority stockholders a “fair price”. As a result of the entire fairness doctrine, squeeze out transactions in Delaware are particularly subject to litigation risk.  Almost from its inception, controlling stockholders and their advisors sought to avoid the application of that doctrine through structuring techniques.  This led to a series of decisions in the 2000s in which the Delaware courts commented on various alternative structures and evidenced increasing concern that substantive protections for minority stockholders should not depend on the legal structure used for a squeeze out.  This process came to a head, and possibly to a conclusion, with the MFW litigation.  In MFW , the Delaware courts held that a squeeze out, without regard to structure, would not be subject to the entire fairness standard of review, but would be subject to the more deferential business judgment rule standard of review, if, among other matters, the transaction was negotiated on behalf of the target company by a properly functioning special committee consisting of independent directors and was approved by a fully informed, uncoerced vote of minority shareholders representing a majority of the shares not held by the controlling stockholder (the so-called “majority of the minority vote”).  MFW has now become the prevailing model for squeeze out transactions in Delaware. It is worth noting at the outset that MFW is not a decision based on stockholder ratification.  It is, instead, a decision about judicial standard of review.  However, as a practical matter, the determination of the standard of review comes very close to compelling the conclusion on the merits:  controlling stockholders routinely failed review under the entire fairness doctrine and routinely survived judicial review under the business judgment standard. As noted earlier, the entire fairness doctrine had two components—fair process and fair price.  One can see that the MFW standard itself meets the requirement of fair process, with the properly functioning special committee of independent directors and the majority of the minority vote together being a fair process.  So what happened to the concern about fair price that originally led the Delaware courts to include that as a component as of the entire fairness doctrine?  One could say that the Delaware courts simply decided not to worry about fair price.  On the other hand, it might be the courts decided that approval by a majority of the minority vote should be regarded judicially as compelling evidence of fair price.  If MFW were the only line of cases involved here, it would be hard to know what was motivating the Delaware courts.  But MFW is not alone. Deal Price in Appraisal Litigation Under the Delaware corporation law, stockholders who vote against a merger are entitled to seek appraisal, i.e. , to decline to receive the agreed merger consideration and instead to receive cash at a valuation of the target company determined by the Delaware Court of Chancery in an adversarial valuation proceeding known as an appraisal.  The right to appraisal has been a feature of the Delaware corporation law for many decades, albeit rarely seen.  Starting in the middle of the last decade, however, and accelerating through much of the current decade, there was a significant increase in the volume of appraisal demands, leading to a significant increase in the number of reported Delaware decisions on the appraisal statute, including the proper way of valuing Delaware target companies for purposes of appraisal. The most recent Delaware decisions with respect to the proper valuation of a target company in appraisal proceedings have attached extraordinary weight to the agreed deal price itself.  As one recent commentator put it, in the absence of some evidence of a conflicted transaction or self-dealing, at the moment in Delaware it is almost impossible to have an appraisal action reach a valuation of the target company greater than an agreed cash price. As a matter of principle, there is much to like about the Delaware courts’ focus on a deal price.  If the purpose of an appraisal proceeding is to determine the fair value of the target company, what better evidence of value is there than an agreed transaction price negotiated at arm’s length?   From the perspective of the appraisal statute, however, heavy reliance on the deal price seems illogical.  The purpose of the appraisal statute is to give a dissenting stockholder the right to argue for something other than, and presumably greater than, the deal price in the transaction against which the stockholder voted.  It would be an overstatement to claim that an overwhelming presumption that the deal price equals appraised fair value eviscerates the appraisal statute, but it is certainly true that it substantially reduces the benefit of the appraisal statute to dissenting stockholders. Why, after decades of jurisprudence relating to the proper methods for valuing companies in appraisal proceedings, did the Delaware courts adopt a rule attaching so much weight to the agreed deal price?  One explanation that has been offered was a judicial attempt to crack down on abusive and expensive appraisal proceedings.  Another explanation though, seems more consistent with MFW .  Just as, in MFW , one can see the Delaware courts concluding that the fair price component of the entire fairness doctrine should be deemed to be met as a result of uncoerced stockholder approval of the transaction, one can see in the appraisal proceedings the Delaware courts deferring to the judgment of the stockholders (in the form of stockholder approval of an agreed transaction) as compelling evidence of fair value of the target company.  But even MFW and the appraisal cases are not alone. Corwin The 2015 decision of the Delaware Supreme Court in Corwin is probably the most significant Delaware M&A decision in 15 years.  While MFW and the appraisal cases referred to above can be seen as elaborations on existing doctrine, it is hard to categorize Corwin the same way.  One can argue that Corwin involves a reversal of almost 30 years of Delaware doctrine regarding judicial review of actions by boards of target companies.  At the very least, Corwin has compelled a deep reexamination of that doctrine. Under the Corwin doctrine, the Delaware courts will apply the deferential business judgment rule standard of review to decisions of a board of directors of a target company if the relevant M&A transaction is approved by a fully informed, uncoerced vote of disinterested stockholders (other than in a squeeze out, in which MFW applies).  The Delaware courts have already substantially elaborated on Corwin by expanding it to provide business judgment rule standard of review if a majority of the stockholders accepted a non-coercive tender offer and by explicitly acknowledging that Corwin is a substantial limitation on two iconic Delaware decisions from the 1980’s:   Unocal , dealing with takeover defenses, and Revlon , dealing with directors’ responsibilities when selling a target company. We have also seen cases in which the Delaware courts have declined to apply Corwin.  It is clear the courts will over time develop a coherent theory of what constitutes coercion of stockholders.  So far, in one decision, the court found a stockholder vote to be coerced by pre-transaction actions by the board that made the status quo (“no deal”) alternative very unattractive to stockholders.  In a second decision, the court did not apply Corwin to an M&A transaction in which a major stockholder received ancillary benefits (echoing MFW ).  No doubt there will be significant developments in this area. Corwin has significantly changed M&A practice in the U.S., with deal professionals pushing more aggressively for stockholder votes by disinterested stockholders as well as better disclosure in proxy statements.  Corwin ’s impact on M&A stockholder litigation has been even more dramatic.  In the time since Corwin , there has been a significant drop in U.S. M&A litigation alleging fiduciary duty claims and something of an increase in litigation claiming violations of the U.S. securities laws.  Although correlation does not prove causation, the prevailing view of market professionals is that the shift in litigation is substantially attributable to Corwin and related decisions. Corwin is not a doctrine of stockholder ratification but merely sets the standard of review applied by the Delaware courts.  However, given that that standard of review tends to be outcome-determinative, the practical effect of Corwin is very similar to stockholder ratification. Corwin represents a profound challenge to the U.S. model in M&A transactions.  Historically, a key component to the process of holding target boards accountable in M&A transactions has been the combination of searching judicial scrutiny and private litigation as the vehicle for that scrutiny.  By allowing business judgment rule deference, the Delaware courts are now saying that “M&A is not different—at least if the stockholders approve.” So what happened?  One explanation is that Corwin is simply the latest effort by the Delaware courts to bring frivolous M&A litigation under control.  This view links Corwin to the Trulia decision, in which the Delaware courts signaled an increasing reluctance to accept disclosure-only settlements of M&A litigation and to the decisions upholding “forum selection” by laws.  In this view of Corwin , the Delaware courts have taken control of M&A litigation by ensuring that litigation will be in Delaware courts and have substantially limited frivolous litigation through the combination of Trulia and Corwin . There is another explanation, though, that is more consistent with MFW and the appraisal cases.  As one judge said, “there is little utility in a judicial second-guessing of [a determination that a transaction is in the corporate best interest] by the owners of the entity.”  That principle reflects a substantial deviation from the Delaware historical view, as evidenced by the Delaware courts’ reluctance to accept stockholder ratification as a defense to a claim for breach of fiduciary duty by directors.  In the U.S. director-centric model, the Delaware courts historically have scrutinized the conduct of boards of directors to determine whether it met the standards of care, loyalty and good faith expected of boards of directors, not solely whether the M&A transactions they negotiated were in the best interests of stockholders.  Moving to a model in which there is effectively no judicial scrutiny of directors’ conduct with respect to a transaction so long as the stockholders approve that transaction by a fully informed and uncoerced stockholder vote is perilously close, in substance, to a world in which the primary legal responsibility of the target board is to ensure such a vote.  That is much closer to the world of the U.K. Takeover Code than to the Delaware world of Unocal and Revlon . This will be tested.  The guiding principle of Corwin stands uneasily next to such decisions as Airgas , in which the Delaware courts have upheld takeover defenses notwithstanding fully informed and uncoerced votes by stockholders against the use of such defenses.  As one commentator asked recently, “Can the Delaware courts sustain the position that the board is immune from scrutiny because of stockholder approval but is also immune from scrutiny if it ignores the stockholders?” Stay tuned. [Continue Reading]

Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to