Points of practice: placings, acquisitions and MAR
When the funding for a proposed acquisition (which itself constitutes inside information) is the proceeds of a placing, it will be necessary to wall cross placees on the proposed acquisition as part of the fundraising process. This gives rise to some important MAR related points of practice for the issuer which we consider in this article. In writing this article, the author expressly acknowledges the invaluable contribution of the MAR Q&A (Updated 22 May 2018) prepared by the City of London Law Society and Law Society Company Law Committees’ Joint Working Parties on Market Abuse, Share Plans and Takeovers Code.
Wall-crossing and selective disclosure
The first point to consider is the legal basis on which the issuer is able to selectively disclose details of the proposed acquisition to placees without that constituting unlawful disclosure contrary to Article 14(c) of MAR. Key points of practice here are (i) the carve-out (in Article 10(1) of MAR) for disclosure of inside information “in the normal exercise of an employment, a profession or duties” and (2) the guidance in DTR2.5.7(c) which acknowledges that selective disclosure may be made to person with whom the issuer is negotiating an investment transaction (including prospective underwriters or placees of shares of the issuer).
The wall crossing of placees will be typically carried out by the issuer’s broker under the market soundings regime set out in Article 11 of MAR. Where this is the case, Article 11(4) provides that the disclosure of inside information in compliance with Articles 11(3) and (5) is deemed to be made “in the normal exercise of a person’s employment, profession or duties” and is not unlawful disclosure.
In terms of the scope of what can be legitimately disclosed to placees, as a matter of commerciality it would seem trite that they will need to know the background to and the reasons for the proposed placing, including the proposed use of proceeds. However, clear legal authority for this is not apparent in the MAR or the technical guidance issued under it. Thankfully, the MAR Q&A points out that ESMA has acknowledged (albeit not formally or in a binding way) that this will generally be the information relating to the characteristics of the transaction in question (i.e., the placing) but may also include some other information not necessarily directly related to the possible transaction but providing important context to the transaction. On the back of this, the CLLS make the following comment: “By way of example, where an issuer intends to conduct an equity financing to finance an acquisition, it would typically be considered justifiable to disclose the fact of the associated acquisition to potential subscribers and placees”.
Cleansing and securing binding funding commitments
The second point to consider is the strategy for “cleansing” placees and the process for securing their commitment to subscribe in the placing, which will of course constitute a dealing. We understand that a number of institutions, as a matter of policy, will no longer sign placing letters and where this is the case the accelerated bookbuild (ABB) process, which is increasingly common, is usually the way forward. Under an ABB, the book will typically be built “soft” by the broker shortly prior to announcement, with firm legally binding commitments only secured by telephone using recorded lines following announcement of the acquisition and launch of the placing process, thereby cleansing wall crossed institutions in advance of their dealing. Where this approach is followed, issuers may be keen to have the placing underwritten.
Where there is no policy objection to their use, placing letters continue to be used in practice, with the key benefit being security of funding (fundamental where the broker’s placing obligation is a reasonable endeavours obligation only) prior to entering into a legally binding sale and purchase agreement. Where placing letters are used, it is necessary to consider the basis upon which such dealings fall outside of the ambit of the insider dealing provisions of MAR.
Here, the guidance in the MAR Q&A is again extremely helpful, pointing out, amongst other things, recital 23 of MAR which notes that “the essential characteristics of insider dealing consists in an unfair advantage being obtained from inside information to the detriment of third parties … and consequently, the undermining of the integrity of financial markets” and consequently that the prohibition on insider dealing should apply where “a person who is in possession of inside information takes unfair advantage of the benefit gained from that information by entering into market transactions in accordance with that information”. The key points of practice that one can draw from this, and the other sources referred to in the MAR Q&A, are that entering into a placing letter is not a “market transaction” and that using inside information in this way should not infringe the interests protected by MAR.
Sponsor Licence Compliance: Key considerations & how to be audit ready
Join us for the third in our series of mini webinars on post Brexit immigration about sponsor licence compliance.
The Future of Property Careers
Join to our panel discussion and Q&A with industry leaders on the range of opportunities within the property and construction sector.
Liability for costs of repair (City of London v. Leaseholders of Great Arthur House)
Oliver Park writes an article for Lexis®PSL on a property dispute case.
New tax on property developers - consultation paper published
The government published a consultation paper on the design of the new residential property developers tax.
Procuring modular housing: Is MMC becoming mainstream?
Is Modern Methods of Construction becoming mainstream? Read what it means for Development and Procurement here.
Dual class share structures: how do they work and what are the pros and cons?
Dual class share structures allow a shareholder, for example the founder, to retain voting control over a company.
Q&A: Talking the telecoms talk
Georgina Muskett and Jonathan Wills answer queries on Electronic Communications Code agreement.
Property Patter: Navigating the complexities of Pharmacy Property
Pharmacy property is a specialist area which contains many traps for the unwary.
COVID-19 Vaccination – can an employer make it compulsory for employees?
We review what legal issues to take into account when considering to make vaccination compulsory as an employer.
The Lawyer, New Law Journal, International Adviser, CDR Magazine and eprivateclient report on the firm's partner promotions
Charles Russell Speechlys promoted five lawyers to partner, effective 1 May 2021.
Linking ESG and Executive Pay
How does a business go about embedding a focus on strong ESG performance into the structures and culture of its organisation?
National Security and Investment Act granted Royal Assent
The Act establishes a new regime for the review of mergers, acquisitions and other transactions that could threaten national security.
Recent Trends In Firewall Legislation: BVI, Bermuda And Gibraltar
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Waverton on acquisition of Cornerstone Asset Management
Established in July 2010 and with offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow, Cornerstone offers wealth management and financial planning advice.
What do the new Debt Respite Scheme Regulations mean for Landlords and Tenants?
This will provide legal protection from creditors in the form of either a breathing space or a mental health crisis moratorium.
Charles Russell Speechlys promotes five to Partner
The promotions are effective 1 May 2021 and are accompanied by one Legal Director and 15 Senior Associate promotions.
Risk allocation in commercial leases: the High Court considers rent suspension, insurance and frustration arguments
Read our summary of the full judgement on the latest Covid arrears case.
Charles Russell Speechlys boosts private wealth offering with the hire of an international tax team
Robert Reymond will be joined at the firm by Leigh Nicoll, Emma Tyrrell and Oliver Cooper.
Proposed Takeover Code Amendments – Key Changes
The Consultation Paper has now been followed by a corresponding response paper which made certain modifications to the initial proposals.
Building Back Better: Future Gazing
What’s next for the hospitality industry post-pandemic?