Takeover
Swiss Takeover Law and Market Trends.
-
Developments in Swiss Takeover Law
The past twelve months saw some significant developments in Swiss takeover law. Notably, the Takeover Board clarified the requirements for restructuring exceptions and examined cases involving the risk of a takeover obligation as a result of capital increases. Additionally, it addressed acting in concert scenarios and a special situation in which a competition law clearance…
Reference: CapLaw-2024-38 -
The Continuing Conundrum in Public Tender Offers: Treatment of Participation Plans
The Swiss Takeover Board (“TOB“) applies a relaxed standard to modifications of participation plans concerning the target’s board members and executives (“PPs“). This conflicts with the doctrine of ancillary benefits. In a recent newsletter the TOB seemed to announce a change in the doctrine of modifications to PPs in connection with a public offer so…
Reference: CapLaw-2023-60 -
The use and modalities of opting out/up clauses – new developments
In the case of MCH Group AG, the Swiss Takeover Board and FINMA refined their practice regarding the consent of the majority of the minority shareholders to the introduction of an opting out/up by clarifying who is considered to be a minority shareholder and which quorum is used to determine the voting result. By Dr….
Reference: CapLaw-2021-36 -
Share Buy-backs – Reloaded | Insights into Selected Areas of Publicly Announced Share Buy-backs by Swiss Companies
Arbitrageurs are important players in the buy-back market, primarily because of certain tax considerations. One important driver is the repurchase price a company is permitted to offer in a share buy-back. Particular attention should be placed to secondary market transactions during a share buy-back (e.g., sales of ADRs). Novelties include VWAP-based buy-back programs and buy-backs…
Reference: CapLaw-2019-17 -
Untrue or Incomplete Information in Offer Prospectus
On 22 November 2017, the Swiss Takeover Board issued a ruling regarding untrue or incomplete information with respect to the offeror contained in the offer prospectus published by HNA in connection with the public tender offer for all shares in gategroup. By Hans-Jakob Diem / Andreas Hinsen (Reference: CapLaw-2018-32)
Reference: CapLaw-2018-32 -
Rising Popularity of Reverse Break Fees and Legal Challenges for Swiss Bidders
Reverse break fees are becoming more and more popular in private but also public M&A deals. Compared to Switzerland, reverse break fees are often significantly higher in the US. The Swiss Takeover Board is limiting direct break fees in public offers. Reverse break fees, however, are not subject to any ex ante official control and…
Reference: CapLaw-2017-46 -
Kuoni and EFG International: Recent Decisions of the Swiss Takeover Board
This article summarises two decisions of the Swiss Takeover Board regarding the recently announced takeover offer for Kuoni by EQT, which, inter alia, contain relevant guidance in relation to the so-called “Minimum and Best Price Rules” and “irrevocables”. In addition, during the first quarter of 2016 the Swiss Takeover Board has passed a noteworthy decision…
Reference: CapLaw-2016-20 -
No Tailoring of Opting Out Clauses – Takeover Board rejects Schindler’s Proposed Changes to its Articles of Association
In its recent decision 610/01 in the matter of Schindler Holding Ltd (published on 21 July 2015), the Swiss Takeover Board held that Swiss takeover law does not allow companies to provide for individual rules on the obligation to make a takeover offer that go beyond the options set forth in the law. Accordingly, in the…
Reference: CapLaw-2015-44 -
Electronic Means of Communication in Future Takeover Proceedings – Thoughts on the New Rules Proposed by the TOB on 18 August 2015
In August/September 2015, the Swiss Takeover Board (TOB) conducted a consultation proceeding on a proposed revision of the Takeover Ordinance (TOO). At its core, the revision aims at abolishing the duty to publish the offer documents in newspapers. The authors support the proposed revision for efficiency reasons. For policy reasons, the authors further advocate the…
Reference: CapLaw-2015-45