1107008 Informal Interpretation

Date:
Rule:
Item 6(c)(ii)
Staff:
Michael Verne
Response/Comments:

  1) The 49% holding of the acquiring person in X would be reported in Item 6(c)(i). The 2% holding of the associate would not be reported in 6(c)(ii) because it is less than 5%. You would not aggregate the holding of the acquiring person and the associate and report in Item 7. 2) You are correct -if the Newco is its own UPE, we wouldn't get any additional information, unless one of the sponsors is a "lead investor" who individually directs Newco's investment decisions. 3) If there are two 50-50 sponsors of the Newco, the sponsors are the acquiring persons and each would look to its associates when responding to Item 6(c)(ii) and Item 7.

Question

From: (Redacted)
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 2:20PM
To: Verne,B. Michael
Subject: Associates Questions

HiMr. Verne,

Iparticipated in the Ropes web-discussion (which was very helpful) and I have acouple of follow up questions:

1. I asked this question on the Q&A, but didn't feelthat it was completely understood, so I would appreciate your thoughts on it-one fund holds 49% of Company X; an Associate (another sister fund) also holds2% of Company X. If NAICS overlap exists with respect to Company X and thetarget/seller, do you disclose under Item 6(c)(ii) (J think, per theinstructions, it would be "none"), Item 7(a) (per the instructions,again "none"), Item 7(b)(ii) and 7(d) (per the instructions, I think"none" -- I would think a less than 5% holding of an Associate wouldnot be an Associate, so, would not be subject to these items). If this is thecase, no disclosure of 50%+ holding would result (no different than the oldform), nor will there be any disclosure of the Associate's holdings (sinceunder 5%) in the Acquiring Fund's identical holdings (only the Acquiring Fund'sdisclosure under 6(c)(i), setting forth a non-controlling 49% interest -so, noadditional disclosure of the 2% holdings results). Is this correct -or do weneed to disclose somewhere that the Sponsor holds a controlling interest ofCompany X via multiple sister funds?

2. I was confused about the Club Holding Corp. discussion(that the new form results in greater disclosure of the Club member sponsorsholdings) -if there is no Sponsor acquiring more than 50% in the aggregate (viamultiple sister funds) (Le., 30% Sponsor X, 40% Sponsor V, 30% Sponsor Z) -I amnot sure that there would be any more disclosure than under the old form (Le.,just the item 6(b) information, which existed in the old form). In addition, ina 50/50 deal (with a lot of sister funds for each Sponsor), I guess theimportant question is whether the new Club Holding Corp. has an investmentmanager (to go down to the Associates of the investment manager). If that isthe case, I suppose you could have 2 Sponsors with sister funds aggregating to50%, without the requirement of disclosure of control in subsequent HSR filingsfor a non-investment managing Sponsor, even if it has 50% (i.e., 2Sponsors, 50/50 (when taking into account the multiple sister funds each has),with only one (or none) of the Sponsor being the investment manager). Also, whatif there is no "investment manager" - the Club Holding Corp. has 1director each appointed by the 2 sponsors, but with no investment managercontract.

Iwould appreciate your thoughts on these two questions.

About Informal Interpretations

Informal interpretations provide guidance from previous staff interpretations on the applicability of the HSR rules to specific fact situations. You should not rely on them as a substitute for reading the Act and the Rules themselves. These materials do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice.

Learn more about Informal Interpretations.