Skip to main content
Date

Tags:

Rule
801.2(d)
Staff
Kate Walsh
Response/Comments

This is a consolidation.

Question

From: Walsh, Kathryn E.
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:57 PM
To: [REDACTED]; Gillis, Diana L.; Whitehead, Nora
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: Question on reporting as merger vs consolidation

[REDACTED], we think this is a consolidation.

From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:23 AM
To: Walsh, Kathryn E.; Gillis, Diana L.; Whitehead, Nora
Cc: [REDACTED]
Subject: Question on reporting as merger vs consolidation

Dear Kate, Diana, Nora,

We would like to confirm our understanding that the following transaction would be treated as a merger pursuant to Rule 801.2(d)(i) and (ii), and not as a consolidation pursuant to Rule 801.2(d)(iii), and that Parent in the scenario below will be an acquiring person only, and Company B will be an acquired person only.

In Step 1, prior to (but conditioned upon) the closing of the transaction, Company A, a foreign corporation, will form a new Bermuda company, Parent, for the purpose of the transaction.  Also prior to the closing date,  Parent will acquire, directly or indirectly, all of the voting securities of Company A held by its current shareholders, and the shareholders of Company A will receive all of the voting securities of Parent.  There will be two classes of stock in Parent, Class 1 and Class 2.  They will have similar economic rights, but Class 2 shares have greater voting rights.  Company A shareholders can elect to receive Class 2 shares.

Step 1 and Step 2 may occur on the same day, and in any case Step 1 is conditioned on the satisfaction of the conditions to Step 2.

Then, in Step 2, Merger Sub, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, also formed prior to closing, will merge with and into Company B, a US corporation (the “Merger”), with Company B surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.  It is also anticipated that, following Step 2, Company A will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a sister company of Company B.

In consideration for the Merger, Company B shareholders will exchange their voting securities of Company B for Class 1 shares comprising a collective minority of the voting securities of Parent.  Certain Company B shareholders may exchange their voting securities of Company B for cash pursuant to the redemption provisions in Company B’s current organizational documents. 

Assume that the acquisition by Parent of Company B would be exempt, as Company B holds only assets exempt under Rule 801.21.  However, one or more US shareholders of Company B may have a filing obligation under Rule 801.2(e) for the acquisition of voting securities of Parent as a result of the merger of Company B and Merger Sub in Step 2.  One or more US shareholders of Company A may also have a filing obligation in Step 1 to the extent their receipt of Class 2 shares in Step 1 increases their share of voting rights relative to their previous holdings in Company A. 

We believe that, while each of Company A and Company B will be wholly-owned subsidiaries of Parent following all steps described above, the transaction nevertheless should be treated as a merger of Parent and Company B only, with Parent as an acquiring person only and Company B as an acquired person only, due to the sequence of the transactions and that Parent will become the UPE of Company A in Step 1, prior to the Merger in Step 2.

Do you agree?  Please let us know if you require any further information.

Best,

[REDACTED]

About Informal Interpretations

Informal interpretations provide guidance from PNO staff on the applicability of the HSR rules to specific fact situations. They do not necessarily reflect the position of the Commission. 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.