“毒丸策略”即将寿终正寝

1、 “毒丸策略”即将寿终正寝？2011年 01月 20日 09:35本月，“毒丸策略”将接受审判。近30年来，各大公司一直将“毒丸”作为重要的法律工具来抵御外界的敌意收购。但现在这颗“毒丸”自身也遭到了攻击。在未来几周，特拉华州联邦地区法院的一名法官将对“毒丸”策略的使用做出裁决，这项裁决将作为他审议围绕工业气体公司Airgas长达一年的敌意收购战的考虑结果。从事公司法律业务的律师将其称作30年来最有影响的裁决之一，足以影响董事会和股东之间的力量平衡。平衡的打破会对公司如何选择战略，安排资本支出，选拔企业高管等问题造成重大影响。在佳利律师事务所（Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen &

2、amp; Hamilton LLP.）的合伙人卢科（Victor Lewkow）看来，如果真有一天法院会责令废除“毒丸”策略，那么很可能就是Airgas这个案子了。无论法院最终如何判决，这都是一个非常重要的决定。这里涉及的案件是指美国气体化工产品有限公司（Air Products & Chemicals Inc.，以下简称“美国气体”）对竞争对手Airgas发起的敌意收购。第一次收购报价是去年二月份给出的，现在美国气体给出的报价是59亿美元。所谓“毒丸”策略是指被收购方使用一系列手段让收购方收购部分股票的成本大大增加，相关收购比例通常在20%以上。美国气体在Airgas的董事会（由10

3、人构成）中占有三个席位。许多股东似乎乐见Airgas被售出。这和Airgas的创始人麦考斯兰（Peter McCausland）以及其他董事会成员的意愿相违背。在这些人看来，美国气体的报价大大低估了Airgas的价值。现在特拉华州衡平法院的法官钱德勒（William Chandler）必须裁定是否终止“毒丸”策略。这项裁定将给所有公司抛出一个重要问题，即企业面临敌意收购时，董事会的权力和责任何时该向股东转移。“毒丸”策略的合法性直到1985年才被确立，当时Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz律师事务所在诉讼中成功说服了法官，证明了“毒丸”的合法性。当时的这项裁决

4、涉及Household公司（Household International Inc.）的一位叫做莫兰（John Moran）的董事，他和其他高管一道发起了对公司的管理层收购。作为Household最大的股东，莫兰提起诉讼，制止公司采取“毒丸”策略，认为公司的做法会伤害股东的利益，因为这剥夺了股东考虑相关提案的权利。特拉华州法院最终认定了“毒丸”策略的合法性，称这种策略符合企业的经营宗旨，该策略的实施不会在董事会和股东之间偏向前者。这个判例给了董事会一种自由，即公司面临敌意收购时，董事会可以实施“毒丸”策略作为合理的反击。在当时这个判例让很多敌意收购者感到了不安。Gina Chon/Anupre

5、eta DasTakeover War Turns Into A Trial Over 'Poison Pill'2011年 01月 20日 09:35The 'poison pill' goes on trial this month.For almost 30 years, companies have used the pill as the critical legal tool to ward off hostile takeovers.Now the pill itself has come under attack and, in the next

6、 few weeks, a Delaware judge is expected to rule on its use as part of his review of a year-long takeover battle for industrial-gas company Airgas Inc.Corporate attorneys are calling it one of the most significant legal decisions in a generation, one that could affect the balance of power between bo

7、ards and shareholders. Any change in power could also have big ramifications for how companies choose their strategy, spend their capital, or elevate their executives.'If there was ever a situation in which the court would order the elimination of the pill, this would appear to be the case,'

8、 said Victor Lewkow, a partner at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP. 'It's an awfully important decision, whichever way the court rules.'The case involves Air Products & Chemicals Inc.'s hostile bid for rival Airgas, first made last February and now valued at $5.9 billon

9、. The pill 'poisons' a takeover by making it prohibitively expensive to acquire a certain percentage of company shares, typically more than 20%.Air Products has already placed three directors on the company's 10-member board. And many shareholders seem keen on Airgas being sold. That goe

10、s against the wishes of Airgas founder Peter McCausland and other board members, who say it undervalues the company.Now Chancery Court Judge William Chandler must rule whether to end the pill, a decision that sets off a crucial question for all corporations: At what point should power and responsibi

11、lity shift from the board to shareholders in a takeover offer?The legality of the poison pill was unclear until it was upheld in 1985, when law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz successfully defended its use. The ruling involved a director of Household International Inc., John Moran, who was p

12、art of a management-led effort to acquire the company. As Household's largest shareholder, Mr. Moran had filed a suit to stop the company from adopting the pill, arguing it would hurt shareholders by taking away their right to consider proposals for the company.The Delaware court upheld the pill, saying that it 'serves a rational corporate purpose' and wouldn't favor the board over shareholders.That case - coming amid great unease about corporate raiders - gave boards latitude to implement a pill as a