"US M&A: Looking Back at 2013 and Forward to a Brighter 2014"

by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

U.S. deal activity was the bright spot in an otherwise relatively muted global M&A market in 2013. Several large U.S. transactions were announced in the first two months of the year, and although deal volume for transactions (involving U.S. targets) grew at a slower rate over the remainder of the year, large transactions continued to drive improved U.S. deal volume for 2013 generally. In addition, a modest uptick of deals in the fourth quarter may be a harbinger of increased confidence and heightened M&A activity in 2014.

Improving U.S. economic conditions could boost boardroom confidence levels and advance M&A activity that boards previously may have put on hold. In addition, shareholders are playing a more active role as drivers of M&A activity, prompting boards to consider divestitures, spin-offs and company sales. Corporate cash balances remain at historically high levels, and acquisition financing continues to be available on attractive terms. Equity markets have been stable, and stock prices are at near-record highs, creating attractive acquisition capital for potential corporate acquirers; however, this may often be offset by increased acquisition costs and a decreased number of targets perceived to be undervalued. Financial sponsors continue to sit on large reserves of capital to be deployed for acquisition-related investment (approximately $395 billion worldwide and $207 billion in North American-focused buyout funds as of January 2014, according to Preqin estimates), and private equity portfolio company exits should continue apace in 2014. All that said, favorable indicators have existed in recent years, including in 2013, without igniting robust levels of deal activity. As such, the outlook for 2014 remains encouraging.

General Observations

U.S. Activity Drives Global M&A Market. In light of continuing economic uncertainty and volatility in other markets, U.S. targets were attractive to buyers seeking to deploy cash and take advantage of low interest rates as well as the perceived safety of investing in the United States. The dollar value of announced M&A transactions for U.S. targets was $1.04 trillion in 2013, representing approximately 43 percent of total global deal activity, according to Thomson Reuters data. Ten of the 15 largest transactions announced worldwide in 2013 involved a U.S. target.

Similar to last year, we expect the telecommunications and media and technology industries to remain among the most active in 2014. The telecommunications and media sector was the greatest contributor to deal volume (in dollar value) in 2013, largely because of the $130.1 billion Verizon Wireless transaction. Meanwhile, the technology sector, despite a slight decline from the previous year, had the largest number of transactions last year. While several observers expect U.S. M&A activity in the health care sector to heat up due to consolidation fueled in part by the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act, issues surrounding the act’s initial implementation and other factors may contain deal activity in the near term (see Regulatory/“Health Care and Life Sciences: Affordable Care Act Rollout to Impact M&A and Enforcement Activity”).

Megadeals Return. After a notable lack of high-value deals in 2012, the “megadeal” returned in 2013, with 11 announced transactions in excess of $5 billion involving U.S. public company targets. Several large deals were announced early in the year, including the acquisitions of H.J. Heinz Co. by Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and 3G Capital ($27.4 billion) and Dell Inc. by Michael Dell and Silver Lake Partners ($24.9 billion), fueling short-lived speculation of a rebound in 2013 M&A activity to prefinancial crisis levels. In September, Verizon Communications Inc. announced the acquisition of Vodafone Group’s 45 percent interest in Verizon Wireless for $130.1 billion, the largest transaction of the year and the third-largest in history.

One-Step Mergers Remain Preferred Deal Structure … for Now. The majority of acquisitions involving U.S. public company targets have been one-step mergers, which enable a buyer to gain 100 percent control of a target through a simple statutory process, requiring target shareholder approval. Buyers seeking speed often utilize a two-step structure — a first-step tender offer followed by a second-step short-form merger — because it does not require shareholder approval and can be completed more quickly than a one-step merger, often in as little as one month. However, if the number of shares tendered into the offer is not sufficient to permit a short-form merger, the parties are required to follow the long-form merger process.

Amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law became effective in August 2013, which permit the use of a short-form second-step merger if, following the completion of a first-step tender offer, the buyer owns a sufficient number of shares to approve the second-step merger (typically a majority of the outstanding shares, compared to 90 percent of the outstanding shares prior to the amendments). After the amendments went into effect, the number of transactions structured as first-step tender offers followed by second-step short-form mergers increased (see "Delaware Continues to Influence US M&A"). Transactions implementing this structure in 2013 included Paulson & Co.’s acquisition of Steinway, Valeant Pharmaceuticals' pending acquisition of Solta Medical and Endo Health Solutions’ pending acquisition of NuPathe. The amendments are particularly noteworthy in leveraged acquisitions, where the increased certainty of closing on the tender offer and second-step merger in the same day gives buyers and their debt financing sources greater comfort in their ability to use the target's assets as collateral for financing the tender offer.

While we expect to see an increase in the number of deals structured as first-step tender offers, it is too early to tell whether the two-step merger will become the M&A acquisition structure of choice. Transaction parties will need to evaluate the various considerations of their particular deal — will the regulatory review process be lengthy, is the committed support of the target's large shareholders desirable for deal certainty — as well as the fiduciary duties of the target board in determining the appropriate structure.

Psychology of Strategic Buyers and Sellers

Strategic buyers and sellers exhibited discipline in their dealmaking activities in 2013, adopting a risk-averse approach. With stock prices nearing historic highs, boards and management carefully evaluated buy-side opportunities to avoid overpaying, including deciding whether to participate in competitive auctions. Strategic buyers continued to look for “add-on” acquisitions to expand their existing product and service offerings, customer base and/or geographic footprint in an environment of low organic growth. Although prevailing economic and market conditions were favorable, few big-ticket transformational transactions were announced during the year. It remains to be seen whether the completion of those transactions and the continuation of stable market conditions will give boards the confidence to undertake industry-changing transactions in 2014.

Strategic sellers continued to focus on their core businesses, divesting noncore businesses to an eager audience of buyers hungry for attractive acquisition candidates. Buyers took advantage of available credit, low interest rates and historically high levels of cash to pursue these candidates, while strategic sellers continued to use spin-offs to focus on their core competencies, unlock the value of high-growth business segments and boost stock prices.

Exits Drive Private Equity Deal Activity

Private equity sellers were ideally situated to realize sizeable returns on the sale of portfolio companies in 2013, as buyers actively sought attractive targets and stock market valuations were at historically high levels. In one of the largest private equity exit transactions of the year, Warburg Pincus sold its portfolio company, Bausch & Lomb Inc., to Valeant Pharmaceuticals for $8.7 billion. IPOs also continued to be a popular exit strategy, as private equity firms looked to monetize the value of their investments while the IPO market remained open (see Capital Markets/“The JOBS Act: The Resurgent IPO Market and What We Learned in Year Two”).

However, despite record levels of callable capital reserves (or “dry powder”) and the availability of acquisition financing at historically low interest rates, private equity buyers have been struggling to find quality assets at attractive prices. In the absence of platform acquisition opportunities, private equity buyers are engaging in more add-on acquisitions, with a focus on enhancing the revenue and value of their existing portfolio companies. The low interest rate environment and accessible debt markets in 2013 also facilitated portfolio recapitalizations, a trend that carried over from 2012. Information technology, particularly software, was a popular industry for private equity buyers in 2013, with more traditional industries for private equity investment such as retail, media, and business products and services attracting lower levels of interest.

Contractual terms around deal certainty remain an important element in private equity acquisition activity. While variants on the theme exist, some form of specific performance, together with a reverse break-up fee typically in excess of levels of seller terminations fees (and concomitant caps on damages against the buyer/sponsor), continue to be the prevailing contractual mechanics to address certainty and redress for nonperformance by a private equity buyer. While transaction parties and deal practitioners will continue to find creative variations on existing contractual technology surrounding deal certainty (and related remedies), we do not expect to see any major structural changes to the private equity contractual terms in this area in the immediate future.

Shareholder Activists Influence M&A Activity

Increasingly, activist shareholders have been seeking to influence the strategic direction of companies; and in many instances, they have garnered support for their ideas from mainstream institutional investors. While activists historically have focused their efforts on smaller, underperforming companies, in 2013 they turned their attention to large-cap and diversified businesses with multiple operating segments, including companies performing consistently with their peers. Boards and management are reassessing the strategic fit of noncore businesses, and activists are reinforcing this boardroom trend, often resulting in divestitures or spin-offs. Activists played prominent roles in several large M&A transactions last year — most notably Carl Icahn in his rival bid for Dell Inc. All indications, including the activist community’s fundraising efforts and commentary, point to a continuation of activism in 2014 and beyond (see Governance/“US Corporate Governance: Boards of Directors Face Increased Scrutiny”).

Another trend capturing attention in boardrooms and the deal community in 2013 was shareholder activism in the context of opposing announced transactions, such as Soft Bank/Sprint/Clearwire, Plains Exploration/Freeport-McMoRan and Dell. Activist funds and arbitrageurs made their presence known in the public company M&A arena and, in several instances, led campaigns to improve deal economics. Transaction parties should be prepared in advance to address shareholder concerns and should not assume that an arm's length, heavily negotiated, carefully analyzed, good-faith determination to enter into a transaction will lead to shareholder approval without controversy.

Hostile Activity

Hostile and unsolicited activity was subdued for much of 2013, with only four hostile transactions announced during the first three quarters; however, activity picked up somewhat in the fourth quarter, with the announcement of seven unsolicited transactions.1 Hostile activity often is perceived to correlate with higher levels of board and management confidence, and the fourth quarter may be an indicator for increased dealmaking activity in 2014.

Of particular note is the unsolicited $2.3 billion acquisition proposal by Jos. A. Bank for Men’s Wearhouse, a rival men’s clothing company, announced in October 2013. After its proposal was rejected by Men’s Wearhouse, Jos. A. Bank withdrew its offer. In a maneuver referred to as a “Pac-Man” defense transaction, Men’s Wearhouse turned the tables and announced an offer to acquire Jos. A. Bank, the smaller of the two companies, for $1.5 billion. This offer was rejected in late December by Jos. A. Bank. Men’s Wearhouse formally launched an unsolicited tender offer for Jos. A. Bank on January 6.


Political, fiscal and monetary uncertainties persist in the U.S., and levels of M&A activity remain muted when compared to the historic highs of the pre-2008 market. However, some of the factors that contributed to an encouraging finish in 2013 could play a role in a brighter U.S. M&A market in 2014. While the pace of activity in the new year may be modest, the factors are in place to stimulate increased dealmaking.

1 For this discussion, we count Jos. A. Bank/Men’s Wearhouse twice.

* This article appeared in the firm's sixth annual edition of Insights on January 16, 2014.

Download PDF


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.