The Conference Board uses cookies to improve our website, enhance your experience, and deliver relevant messages and offers about our products. Detailed information on the use of cookies on this site is provided in our cookie policy. For more information on how The Conference Board collects and uses personal data, please visit our privacy policy. By continuing to use this Site or by clicking "OK", you consent to the use of cookies. 

18 Mar. 2011 | Comments (0)

The recent Delaware Court of Chancery Air Products v. Airgas decision and the spate of poison pill adoptions in recent months lends credence to the theory that the anti-takeover shareholder rights plans are alive and well.DN-V3N5-11 COVER A Director Notes report entitled Poison Pills in 2011 released by The Conference Board Governance Center yesterday addresses the issue of poison pills and offers some recommendations for corporate boards to avoid becoming a hostile takeover target. The report, co-authored by Andrew L. Bab (a partner) and Sean P. Neenan (an associate) of Debevoise & Plimpton, states that while the shareholder rights agreement is no longer prevalent, recent case law shows that properly structured poison pills can be valuable anti-takeover devices. Among the four recommendations in the report [Read March 17 press release], Bab and Neenan write that boards should:
  • Consider drafting shareholder rights plans so that they satisfy standards of acceptability set by the most influential proxy voting advisors such as ISS while also taking into account such issues as derivative voting positions and net operating losses (NOL), which can be a valuable corporate asset until there is an ownership change.
  • Consider having management maintain a thoughtful business plan for the corporation that the board understands and has approved.
  • Consider abstaining from certain defensive tactics, such as introducing supermajority voting requirements or disallowing action by written consent or limiting the ability to call special meetings.
  • Consider adopting advance notice bylaws so that directors can avail themselves of enough time to obtain the information necessary to make a rational business decision about the acquisition or merger offer.
“It will be interesting to watch for changes in poison pill activity taking place this proxy season, as companies react to the most recent developments in case law, hedge funds get back into the activism game, and M&A activity continues to grow,” Bab said. By no means is the latest Director Notes report the only recent research on poison pills. According to an article on (Poison Pills Haven’t Lost Their Potency), research from FactSet Research Systems shows that eight of 11 poison pills implemented in the first quarter of 2011 were adopted in response to an activist investor acquisition or to preserve the NOL carryforwards. The article goes on to say that shareholder rights plans are being used more now as short-term stopgaps against impending takeover threats opposed to being insurance policies against corporate raiders. And just last week, Family Dollar Stores began fighting off a hostile takeover by rejecting a multi-billion bid by a hedge fund and adopting a poison pill. However, in a Feb. 24 Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece (An Antidote for the Corporate Poison Pill) the well-known Harvard Law School professor and director of its corporate governance program, Lucian Bebchuk, warns that while the Delaware court decision upholds the validity of certain poison pills, pressure by shareholders could “substantially limit their toxicity.” “That would produce considerable benefits for investors and for our capital markets,” Bebchuk wrote. He further explained Chancellor William Chandler’s logic behind his decision:
“Chancellor Chandler stated that he would have preferred to let shareholders make the choice at this stage, as they ‘know what they need to know . . . to make an informed decision.’ But he felt that denying shareholders' right to choose was required by previous Delaware cases, which recognized directors' right to block offers out of concern that shareholders would accept them ‘in ignorance or a mistaken belief’ concerning the value of remaining independent.”
Meanwhile, The Conference Board Governance Center will continue to provide guidance to public companies facing activist shareholders through its Director Notes series and the Shareholder Activism Report and Resource Portal, which was launched in April 2010 in collaboration with the following professional leaders in the field: Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; Egon Zehnder International; Georgeson Inc.; Hedge Fund Solutions, LLC; Innisfree M&A Incorporated; Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher; MacKenzie Partners, Inc.; Sard Verbinnen & Co; Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.
  • About the Author:Gary Larkin

    Gary Larkin

    Gary Larkin is a research associate in the corporate leadership department at The Conference Board in New York. His research focuses on corporate governance, including succession planning, board compo…

    Full Bio | More from Gary Larkin


0 Comment Comment Policy

Please Sign In to post a comment.

    Subscribe to the Governance Blog
    Support Our Work

    Support our nonpartisan, nonprofit research and insights which help leaders address societal challenges.






    Performance Management Conference

    Performance Management Conference

    November 17 - December 09, 2020

    Merger Integration Conference

    Merger Integration Conference

    November 05 - 06, 2020

    Mitigating People Risks in M&A

    Mitigating People Risks in M&A

    October 27 - 28, 2020

    Executive Compensation Conference Series

    Executive Compensation Conference Series

    October 07 - November 12, 2020