Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 OCTOBER 2010

Panel Pushes Back On Implementation Agreements

Fiduciary-outs should not be so restrictively drafted that they unreasonably prevent target directors from responding to approaches that could reasonably be expected to lead to a superior competing proposal.

AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law

Key Points:

Fiduciary-outs should not be so restrictively drafted that they unreasonably prevent target directors from responding to approaches that could reasonably be expected to lead to a superior competing proposal.

It's not back to the drawing board, but bidders and targets may have to be a bit more circumspect when drafting merger implementation agreements.

The Takeovers Panel decision in Ross Human Directions clearly illustrates that the negotiation of a MIA is a three-sided contest. Those three sides are the bidder, the target directors - and potential rival bidders.

The Panel's concern is that the target board should perform the difficult balancing act of giving the bidder sufficient certainty to commit to a bid without completely or unreasonably shutting the door to potential rival bids. It is from that perspective that it recently examined the lock-up provisions negotiated between Ross Human Directions and bidder Peoplebank.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from