In this briefing:
1. Descente’s Doleful Defense (Dicaeologia)
The new Takeover Rules enacted in December 2006 (with one amendment to the SEL made in 2005 in direct reaction to the loophole used by Livedoor to acquire large stakes of Nippon Broadcasting System off-market to reach a level above one-third) are enshrined in the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act/Law (normally called “FIE”, “FIEA”, or “FIEL”), with the most relevant portions commencing with Article 27-2. These “TOB Rules” outlawed stealth acquisition off-market to “suddenly acquire” a large stake without passing through the market mechanism or conducting a Tender Offer. The principle of this was a sense of “fairness” such that minority investors had an equal opportunity to sell to someone who sought to have control or influence, and that it could not simply be arranged through collusive behavior.
The first rule which mattered to Descente Ltd (8114 JP) was that the Board of the “Subject Company”, according to Article 27-10…
shall, pursuant to the provisions of a Cabinet Office Ordinance, submit a document which states its opinion on the Tender Offer and other matters specified by a Cabinet Office Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Company’s Position Statement”) to the Prime Minister within a period specified by a Cabinet Order from the date when the Public Notice for Commencing Tender Offer is made.
That period specified is 10 business days.
So by Thursday 14 February, Descente’s board was obliged to release a “Subject Company Position Statement” (意見表明報告書) saying whether it was for or against (or neutral or withholding an opinion about) the bid. It also had to state the reasons for its opinion, the process it took to come to those opinions, and whether it would take defensive measures against the bid (and other measures specified in the relevant Cabinet Order. This reporting obligation would allow Descente’s board to ask questions of the acquiror (to which the acquiror would be required to respond within five business days) and to ask for an extension of the Offer (which has a legal enforcement under certain conditions, which are not that difficult to meet).
Several days before that deadline, on Thursday 7 February, Descente Ltd (8114 JP announced its Position Statement (Against) (in Japanese) the Itochu Corp (8001 JP)‘s Tender Offer with a 28-page supporting powerpoint deck (also in Japanese).
The shares were down Thursday and Friday for a reason.
It was a weak defense of Descente’s case.
But investors should take a very close look at the contents of the document.
The document has no ability to legally enforce shareholders (who are not the Offeror) to tender or not tender (it simply asks them to not tender) but if the reasons why the Tender Offer is bad are taken seriously by anyone, it has serious implications for a LOT of companies and takeover situations and indeed METI’s current “M&A Fair Value” public consultation.
If Descente Management and the Board hope that nobody will tender, because Itochu’s presence will cause harm to the medium-long-term corporate value of the company, Management and the Board are putting investors on the spot.
Shares were trading in the ¥1870s and Itochu is offering 50% more than that. Descente saying that corporate value in the medium-long term will be damaged means that should show up in the share price, and investors at the close Friday – after a day to digest the Descente response – believed ¥2520 was the right price if one included the economic effects of the Itochu tender offer. Obviously, that means they think it was worth less if they were not going to tender.
Investors who want to sell all of their shares now could possibly do so at a 33% premium to where their shares were trading.
Management and the Board proposing investors not avail themselves of an opportunity to sell shares to someone willing to pay 50% more than pre-tender price for a portion of their shares (or perhaps 33% more than pre-tender as of Friday’s close for more or all of it) needed to explain their own value proposition. Descente had an opportunity to present a “fair value” number from a valuation expert and hints at why they think the shares are worth as much or more over the medium-long term, giving economically-minded investors a reason not to tender.
The “Subject Company Position Statement” did not do that.
Get Straight to the Source on Smartkarma
Smartkarma supports the world’s leading investors with high-quality, timely, and actionable Insights. Subscribe now for unlimited access, or request a demo below.
