close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Mergers and Acquisitions Alert: Delaware Chancery Court Enforces Confidentiality Agreement by Enjoining Hostile Bid

Summary:
The Delaware Chancery Court recently issued an opinion finding that Martin Marietta violated two confidentiality agreements when it launched a hostile take-over bid for Vulcan Materials. While neither agreement included an express prohibition against a hostile bid—a "standstill" provision—Chancellor Strine enjoined Martin Marietta from proceeding with the bid for four months, effectively ending its proxy contest for this year. Although the holding is specific to the facts of the case, the decision has broad implications for the drafting of confidentiality agreements at the beginning of friendly transactions. In particular, practitioners ought to carefully consider the possibility of "backdoor" standstill obligations arising from confidentiality provisions and remember that confidentiality agreements can constrain the parties' strategic options should the deal go hostile.

Background:
Pursuant to merger talks that began in 2010, Vulcan and Martin Marietta executed a non-disclosure agreement covering both the information shared and the fact that the talks were taking place. The non-disclosure agreement allowed the use of information "solely for purposes of pursuing and completing" a "business combination transaction" that was "between" the parties, and it also contained a customary exception for "legally required" disclosures. The agreement did not include a standstill provision.

The merger was initially conceived as a merger of approximate equals, with Martin Marietta's management largely taking over the combined company. Martin Marietta's CEO in particular was anxious about his management team's role in the combined company and at one point offered to forego a 20% premium for Martin Marietta's stockholders for assurance that he would be the combined company's CEO. As merger talks progressed, Martin Marietta progressively found itself in a superior market position as well as confident of significant synergistic cost savings. Vulcan's management meanwhile cooled on the merger.

As talks fizzled, Martin Marietta surprised Vulcan by launching a hostile bid. In December 2011, Martin Marietta sent Vulcan a public bear hug letter and filed an S-4 detailing the terms of an exchange offer, and in January 2012, Martin Marietta filed a proxy statement in connection with Vulcan's board elections to be held in June 2012. The S-4 discussed the history of the negotiations, portraying Vulcan's CEO in an unfavorable light, as well as detailing potential cost synergies developed with the information received from Vulcan.

In determining whether Martin Marietta had breached the confidentiality agreements, Chancellor Strine engaged in a detailed examination of the language of the agreements and the intentions of the parties. Martin Marietta argued that the use and disclosure of information were permitted under the agreement because the hostile bid was pursuant to a business combination transaction between the parties; Vulcan countered that only a consensual transaction was intended. While the court found that the terms "business combination transaction" and "between" were ambiguous and did not preclude a hostile bid, the extrinsic evidence of the party's intentions indicated that hostile bids were meant to be excluded. The court paid careful attention to the negotiation of the agreement, and specifically that Martin Marietta had repeatedly sought changes to strengthen the agreement.

Martin Marietta then argued that because the disclosure of certain information was required to be included in its S-4 filing, the disclosure was permissible under the agreement's "legally required" exception. In a close reading of the non-disclosure agreement, the court found that only legally required disclosures subject to an external demand, such as a subpoena, should benefit from the exception, and found that because Martin Marietta's decision to proceed with a hostile bid was of its own volition, it should not give rise to the agreement's "legally required" exception.
The court enjoined Martin Marietta from proceeding with its hostile bid for four months, the time frame from Martin Marietta's breach until the expiration of the first agreement. This injunction will prevent Martin Marietta from engaging in a proxy contest at Vulcan's 2012 annual shareholder meeting.

Key Take-Away:
Confidentiality agreements need to be drafted with careful forethought about how the parties' positions and relationship may change over time, and about how shared information ultimately may be used. Even without an express standstill obligation, a court can preclude buyers from using confidential information to further a hostile bid if contractual language is ambiguous and the parties' intentions indicate that an information exchange is solely to further a negotiated transaction. The case is a good reminder to the M&A bar that even early-stage agreements often seen as routine can significantly impact deal strategy and outcomes.