A shareholder rights plan, colloquially known as a "poison pill", is a type of defensive tactic used by a corporation's board of directors against a takeover.
In the field of mergers and acquisitions, shareholder rights plans were devised in the early 1980s to prevent takeover bids by limiting a shareholder's right to negotiate a price for the sale of shares directly.
Typically, such a plan gives shareholders the right to buy more shares at a discount if one shareholder buys a certain percentage or more of the company's shares. [1] The plan could be triggered, for instance, if any one shareholder buys 20% of the company's shares, at which point every other shareholder will have the right to buy a new issue of shares at a discount. If all other shareholders can buy more shares at a discount, such purchases would dilute the bidder's interest, and the bid cost would rise substantially. Knowing that such a plan could be activated, the bidder could be discouraged from taking over the corporation without the board's approval, and would first negotiate with the board to revoke the plan. [2]
The plan can be issued by the board of directors as an "option" or a "warrant" attached to existing shares, and it can only be revoked at the board's discretion.
The poison pill was invented by mergers and acquisitions lawyer Martin Lipton of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in 1982, as a response to tender-based hostile takeovers. [3] Poison pills became popular during the early 1980s in response to the wave of takeovers by corporate raiders such as T. Boone Pickens and Carl Icahn. The term "poison pill" derives its original meaning from a poison pill physically carried by various spies throughout history, a pill which was taken by the spies if they were discovered to eliminate the possibility of being interrogated by an enemy.
It was reported in 2001 that since 1997, for every company with a poison pill which successfully resisted a hostile takeover, there were 20 companies with poison pills that accepted takeover offers. [4] The trend since the early 2000s has been for shareholders to vote against poison pill authorization since poison pills are designed to resist takeovers, whereas from the point of view of a shareholder, takeovers can be financially rewarding.
Some have argued that poison pills are detrimental to shareholder interests because they perpetuate existing management. For instance, Microsoft originally made an unsolicited bid for Yahoo!, but subsequently dropped the bid after Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang threatened to make the takeover as difficult as possible unless Microsoft raised the price to US$37 per share. One Microsoft executive commented, "They are going to burn the furniture if we go hostile. They are going to destroy the place." Yahoo has had a shareholders rights plan in place since 2001. [5] Analysts suggested that Microsoft's raised offer of $33 per share was already too expensive, and that Yang was not bargaining in good faith, which later led to several shareholder lawsuits and an aborted proxy fight from Carl Icahn. [6] [7] Yahoo's stock price plunged after Microsoft withdrew the bid, and Jerry Yang faced a backlash from stockholders that eventually led to his resignation.
Poison pills saw a resurgence of popularity in 2020 as a result of the global coronavirus pandemic. As stock prices plummeted due to the pandemic, various companies turned to shareholder rights plans to defend against opportunistic takeover offers. In March 2020, 10 U.S. companies adopted new poison pills, setting a new record. [8]
The Twitter Board of Directors unanimously enacted a shareholder rights plan in 2022 following an unsolicited purchase offer from Elon Musk. [9] [10] The purchase would go on to take place regardless in October 2022.
In publicly held companies, there are various "poison pill" methods to deter takeover bids. Takeovers by soliciting proxies against the board or by acquiring a controlling block of shares and using the associated votes to get elected to the board. Once in control of the board, the bidder can manage the target. Currently, the most common type of takeover defence is a shareholder rights plan. Because the board of directors of the company can redeem or otherwise eliminate a standard poison pill, it does not typically preclude a proxy fight or other takeover attempts not accompanied by an acquisition of a significant block of the company's stock. It can, however, prevent shareholders from entering into certain agreements that can assist in a proxy fight, such as an agreement to pay another shareholder's expenses. In combination with a staggered board of directors, however, a shareholder rights plan can be a defense. [11]
The goal of a shareholder rights plan is to force a bidder to negotiate with the target's board and not directly with the shareholders. The effects are twofold: [12]
The target issues a large number of new shares, often preferred shares, to existing shareholders. These new shares usually have severe redemption provisions, such as allowing them to be converted into a large number of common shares if a takeover occurs. This immediately dilutes the percentage of the target owned by the acquirer and makes it more expensive to acquire 50% of the target's stock.
A "flip-in" permits shareholders, except for the acquirer, to purchase additional shares at a discount. This provides investors with instantaneous profits. Using this type of poison pill also dilutes shares held by the acquiring company, making the takeover attempt more expensive and more difficult.
A "flip-over" enables stockholders to purchase the acquirer's shares after the merger at a discounted rate. For example, a shareholder may gain the right to buy the stock of its acquirer, in subsequent mergers, at a two-for-one rate.
Under this scenario, the target company re-phases all its employees' stock-option grants to ensure they immediately become vested if the company is taken over. Many employees can then exercise their options and then dump the stocks. With the release of the "golden handcuffs", many discontented employees may quit immediately after having cashed in their stock options. This poison pill is designed to create an exodus of talented employees, reducing the corporate value as a target. In many high-tech businesses, attrition of talented human resources may result in a diluted or empty shell being left behind for the new owner.
For instance, PeopleSoft guaranteed its customers in June 2003 that if it were acquired within two years, presumably by its rival Oracle, and product support were reduced within four years, its customers would receive a refund of between two and five times the fees they had paid for their PeopleSoft software licenses. While the acquisition ultimately prevailed, the hypothetical cost to Oracle was valued at as much as US$1.5 billion. [13]
In a voting plan, a company will charter preferred stock with superior voting rights over that of common shareholders. If an unfriendly bidder acquired a substantial quantity of the target firm's voting common stock, it then still would not be able to exercise control over its purchase. For example, ASARCO established a voting plan in which 99% of the company's common stock would only harness 16.5% of the total voting power. [14]
In addition to these pills, a "dead-hand" provision allows only the directors who introduce the poison pill to remove it (for a set period after they have been replaced), thus potentially delaying a new board's decision to sell a company.
The legality of poison pills had been unclear when they were first put to use in the early 1980s. However, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld poison pills as a valid instrument of takeover defense in its 1985 decision in Moran v. Household International, Inc. However, many jurisdictions other than the U.S. have held the poison pill strategy as illegal, or place restraints on their use.
In Canada, almost all shareholder's rights plans are "chewable," meaning they contain a permitted bid concept such that a bidder who is willing to conform to the requirements of a permitted bid can acquire the company by take-over bid without triggering a flip-in event. Shareholder rights plans in Canada are also weakened by the ability of a hostile acquirer to petition the provincial securities regulators to have the company's pill overturned. Generally, the courts will overturn the pill to allow shareholders to decide whether they want to tender to a bid for the company. However, the company may be allowed to maintain it for long enough to run an auction to see if a white knight can be found. A notable Canadian case before the securities regulators in 2006 involved the poison pill of Falconbridge Ltd. which at the time was the subject of a friendly bid from Inco and a hostile bid from Xstrata plc, which was a 20% shareholder of Falconbridge. Xstrata applied to have Falconbridge's pill invalidated, citing among other things that the Falconbridge had had its pill in place without shareholder approval for more than nine months and that the pill stood in the way of Falconbridge shareholders accepting Xstrata's all-cash offer for Falconbridge shares. Despite similar facts with previous cases in which securities regulators had promptly taken down pills, the Ontario Securities Commission ruled that Falconbridge's pill could remain in place for a further limited period as it had the effect of sustaining the auction for Falconbridge by preventing Xstrata increasing its ownership and potentially obtaining a blocking position that would prevent other bidders from obtaining 100% of the shares.
In the United Kingdom, poison pills are not allowed under the Takeover Panel rules. The rights of public shareholders are protected by the Panel on a case-by-case, principles-based regulatory regime. Raids have helped bidders win targets such as BAA plc and AWG plc when other bidders were considering emerging at higher prices. If these companies had poison pills, they could have prevented the raids by threatening to dilute the positions of their hostile suitors if they exceeded the statutory levels (often 10% of the outstanding shares) in the rights plan. The London Stock Exchange itself is another example of a company that has seen significant stakebuilding by a hostile suitor, in this case the NASDAQ. The LSE's ultimate fate is currently up in the air, but NASDAQ's stake is sufficiently large that it is essentially impossible for a third party bidder to make a successful offer to acquire the LSE.
Takeover law is still evolving in continental Europe, as individual countries slowly fall in line with requirements mandated by the European Commission. Stakebuilding is commonplace in many continental takeover battles such as Scania AB. Formal poison pills are quite rare in continental Europe, but national governments hold golden shares in many "strategic" companies such as telecom monopolies and energy companies. Governments have also served as "poison pills" by threatening potential suitors with negative regulatory developments if they pursue the takeover. Examples of this include Spain's adoption of new rules for the ownership of energy companies after E.ON of Germany made a hostile bid for Endesa and France's threats to punish any potential acquiror of Groupe Danone.
Poison pill is sometimes used more broadly to describe other types of takeover defenses that involve the target taking some action. Although the broad category of takeover defenses (more commonly known as "shark repellents") includes the traditional shareholder rights plan poison pill. Other anti-takeover protections include:
A minuscule number of companies are giving shareholders a say on poison pills. As of June 15, 2009, 21 companies that had adopted or extended a poison pill had publicly disclosed they plan to put the poison pill to a shareholder vote within a year. That was up from 2008's full year total of 18, and was the largest number ever reported since the early 1980s, when the pill was invented. [17]
 | This section needs expansionwith: more examples of effects. You can help by adding to it. (August 2023) |
While there is some evidence that takeover protections allow managers to negotiate a higher purchase price, overall, they reduce firm productivity. [18] [19]
In business, a takeover is the purchase of one company by another. In the UK, the term refers to the acquisition of a public company whose shares are publicly listed, in contrast to the acquisition of a private company.
In business, a corporate raid is the process of buying a large stake in a corporation and then using shareholder voting rights to require the company to undertake novel measures designed to increase the share value, generally in opposition to the desires and practices of the corporation's current management. The measures might include replacing top executives, downsizing operations, or liquidating the company.
In corporate finance a stock swap is the exchange of one equity-based asset for another, where, during the merger or acquisition, the swap provides an opportunity to pay with stock rather than with cash; see Mergers and acquisitions § Stock.
Vale Canada Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Brazilian mining company Vale. Vale's nickel mining and metals division is headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It produces nickel, copper, cobalt, platinum, rhodium, ruthenium, iridium, gold, and silver. Prior to being purchased by CVRD in 2006, Inco was the world's second largest producer of nickel, and the third largest mining company outside South Africa and Russia of platinum group metals. It was also a charter member of the 30-stock Dow Jones Industrial Average formed on October 1, 1928.
Falconbridge Nickel Mines Limited was a Canadian mining company with operations in 18 countries, involved in the exploration, mining, processing, and marketing of metal and mineral products, including nickel, copper, cobalt, and platinum. In 1982 the company was renamed Falconbridge Limited. It was listed on the TSX and NYSE (FAL), and had revenue of US$6.9 billion in 2005. In August 2006, it was absorbed by Swiss-based mining company Xstrata, which had formerly been a major shareholder. On 28 October 2007, Falconbridge Limited changed its name to the Xstrata Canada Corporation.
In corporate finance, a tender offer is a type of public takeover bid. The tender offer is a public, open offer or invitation by a prospective acquirer to all stockholders of a publicly traded corporation to tender their stock for sale at a specified price during a specified time, subject to the tendering of a minimum and maximum number of shares. In a tender offer, the bidder contacts shareholders directly; the directors of the company may or may not have endorsed the tender offer proposal.
In business, a white knight is a friendly investor that acquires a corporation at a fair consideration with support from the corporation's board of directors and management. This may be during a period while it is facing a hostile acquisition from another potential acquirer or it is facing bankruptcy. White knights are preferred by the board of directors and/or management as in most cases as they do not replace the current board or management with a new board, whereas, in most cases, a black knight will seek to replace the current board of directors and/or management with its new board reflective of its net interest in the corporation's equity.
A flip-over is one of five types of poison pills in which current shareholders of a targeted firm will have the option to purchase discounted stock after the potential takeover. Introduced in late 1984 and adopted by many firms, the strategy gave a common stock dividend in the form of rights to acquire the firm's common stock or preferred stock under market value. Following a takeover, the rights would "flip over" and allow the current shareholder to purchase the unfriendly competitor's shares at a discount. If this tool is exercised, the number of shares held by the unfriendly competitors will realize dilution and price devaluation.
In business, the flip-in is one of the five main types of poison pill defenses against corporate takeovers.
A voting plan or voting rights plan is one of five main types of poison pills that a target firm can issue against hostile takeover attempts. These plans are implemented when a company charters preferred stock with superior voting rights to common shareholders. If an unfriendly bidder acquired a substantial quantity of the target firm's voting common stock, it would not be able to exercise control over its purchase. For example, ASARCO established a voting plan in which 99% of the company's common stock would only harness 16.5% of the total voting power.
Lock-up provision is a term used in corporate finance which refers to the option granted by a seller to a buyer to purchase a target company’s stock as a prelude to a takeover. The major or controlling shareholder is then effectively "locked-up" and is not free to sell the stock to a party other than the designated party.
Non-voting stock is the stock that provides the shareholder very little or no vote on corporate matters, such as election of the board of directors or mergers. This type of share is usually implemented for individuals who want to invest in the company's profitability and success at the expense of voting rights in the direction of the company. The investors still get dividends and can participate in capital gains as the shares can be bought and sold in the same way as normal shares. Preferred stock typically has non-voting qualities.
Xstrata plc was an Anglo-Swiss multinational mining company headquartered in Zug, Switzerland and with its registered office in London, United Kingdom. It was a major producer of coal, copper, nickel, primary vanadium and zinc and the world's largest producer of ferrochrome. It had operations in 19 countries across Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America.
A squeeze-out or squeezeout, sometimes synonymous with freeze-out, is the compulsory sale of the shares of minority shareholders of a joint-stock company for which they receive a fair cash compensation.
Management is a type of labor with a special role of coordinating the activities of inputs and carrying out the contracts agreed among inputs, all of which can be characterized as "decision making". Managers usually face disciplinary forces by making themselves irreplaceable in a way that the company would lose without them. A manager has an incentive to invest the firm's resources in assets whose value is higher under him than under the best alternative manager, even when such investments are not value-maximizing.
The Bull-dog Sauce Case is a Supreme Court of Japan case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding hostile takeover defense plans. The Court held that such plans do not necessarily violate the principle of shareholder equality under Japanese statutes, even if they result in discriminatory treatment some shareholders; however, such decisions must be made by shareholders themselves, acting in the company's best interest; they cannot be made by management to protect itself. The Bull-dog Sauce case arose from the first use of a poison pill by a Japanese company, and resulted in the Supreme Court's first ruling on the subject of takeover defenses.
In mergers and acquisitions, a mandatory offer, also called a mandatory bid in some jurisdictions, is an offer made by one company to purchase some or all outstanding shares of another company, as required by securities laws and regulations or stock exchange rules governing corporate takeovers. Most countries, with the notable exception of the United States, have provisions requiring mandatory offers.
Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers.
The following is a glossary which defines terms used in mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers of companies, whether private or public.
Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Inc., C.A. Nos. 10866, 10670, 10935 (Consol.), 1989 Del. Ch. LEXIS 77, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 94, 514, aff'd, 571 A.2d 1140, is a U.S. corporate law case from Delaware, concerning defensive measures in the mergers and acquisitions context. The Delaware Court of Chancery and the Supreme Court of Delaware upheld the use of defensive measures to advance the long-term goals of the target corporation, where the corporation was not in "Revlon mode".
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)