M & A Law Prof Blog

Editor: Brian JM Quinn
Boston College Law School

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Global M&A Trends, Q1 2011

Allen & Overy recently released its Q1 Global M&A Overview.  It's a nice 26 page review of current trends.  Among other things, it includes this chart:


Deals are back, but activity is well short of where things were in 2007/2008.  Well, be thankful for what you have, I suppose.


April 14, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Operation Perfect Hedge

That's the name given by the FBI to the most recent extensive insider trading investigation. Why "Perfect Hedge"?  According to CNBC:

An FBI source says the name "Perfect Hedge" was chosen because that is what the alleged offenders thought they had—a perfect hedge, or an investment with no risk.

So, now we know.


April 14, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Irreconcilable Differences Conference

Thanks to Steven Davidoff and the folks at the Widener University School of Law for putting on a great conference on Monday. It was a super group and there were some really valuable contribtions all around. 


April 13, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Nighthawk letter to counsel

A couple of weeks ago there was some talk of collusive settlements and forum shopping (here).  In a case before the Delaware Chancery Court, Vice Chancellor Laster appointed a special counsel in the case of Scully v Nighthawk to answer the question whether the settlement reached in a foreign jurisdiction was collusive and what role, if any, the court should have when it receives notice of an apparent collusive settlement.  The Special Counsel's report is here.   The bigger issue here relates to merger related litigation leaking out of Delaware to other jurisdictions.  I've got a paper on that issue (forthcoming in the UC Davis Law Review). 

In any event, the Special Counsel reported back to the Vice Chancellor in the Nighthawk case:

Nevertheless, considering the results reached by courts in the cases discussed above, Special Counsel does not believe that the facts here lead to a conclusion that the settlement in this case was collusive. Settlements in multi-jurisdictional deal litigation are nearly always reached quickly—defendants trying to preserve their transactions need to resolve potential injunction motions before the deals close. The timing of settlement here was consistent with similar cases. The amount of fees ultimately agreed to was within the range of fees generally awarded in disclosure settlements. The amount of discovery provided to plaintiffs was similarly within the bounds of discovery often shared by defendants before settling these types of cases. While this Court’s comments suggested that additional discovery might be warranted, theArizona plaintiffs did provide for post-settlement discovery, likely including depositions.

Now, in a letter to counsel in which he also stayed the Delaware case in favor of the Arizona case, Vice Chancellor Laster has added to the record a mea culpa of sorts. He makes it clear that his questioning of the settlement as collusive was "regrettable and misplaced" and that his question "unfairly cast defense counsel in a negative light."   

So, while collusive settlements and forum shopping may continue to be an issue that academics worry about, at least in this case, the court is convinced it was not an issue.


April 13, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)