Commenting on the sustained interest of private equity funds in UK public M&A activity, Cain added: “Private equity funds are now much more comfortable operating within the particular regulatory architecture that the Code imposes and they are able to execute transactions in a sophisticated fashion, whilst demonstrating the ability to move quickly to secure high quality assets, particularly in the context of competitive situations”.
“Given the high level of competition between prospective purchasers in a private M&A context, particularly for highly coveted assets, I expect to see private equity funds continuing to explore potential bids for public companies across a variety of different sectors,” he said. “The ease of access that private equity funds have to capital means that they are well placed to successfully implement their acquisition strategy.”
Cain also considered that public M&A activity had been “characterised by cheap debt” and that he “expected that trend to continue, given that low interest rates are expected to continue in the medium term, which will continue to drive market activity”.
Two thirds of the bids tracked by PLC in the first half of this year were by private equity or other fund-backed bidders, and over half of those involved a US-based bidder.
In Adam Cain’s view, the UK oil and gas sector is one that “appears primed for further public M&A activity”, given current market conditions. He cited “the major changes that have taken place in the UK energy market in the recent past and the continuing influence of private equity funds in the sector, coupled with the fact that a large number of oil and gas companies have underperformed over the longer-term by trading significantly below their core net asset value”.
Likely potential target companies for takeover activity include “a large number of smaller AIM listed companies that have been adversely impacted by their continued exposure to the inherent volatility in oil prices”. These smaller listed companies “may face opportunistic bids from interested suitors that may be perceived by target management as significantly undervaluing their longer-term prospects, despite the subdued nature of that company’s share price in the medium-term,” Cain said.
Changes to the Takeover Code, which governs bids for UK public companies and some private companies, came into force on 5 July 2021. These changes, a number of which relate to conditions to offers and the offer timetable, will “fundamentally change” the way in which contractual offers are undertaken, particularly in respect of regulatory clearances and official authorisations, Cain said.
“The fact that all conditions to an offer now need to be satisfied by a date known as the ‘unconditional date’, coupled with the fact that the acceptance condition can only be satisfied once all other conditions to the offer have been either satisfied or waived, signals quite a significant shift in prevailing market practice relating to the conduct of contractual offers,” he said.
“One helpful element of the changes to the Code is the fact that a bidder may wish to stipulate an unconditional date that is earlier than day 60 by making an acceleration statement in their offer document that is sent to the target company’s shareholders or during the period of the offer. The usage of such a statement may well prove to be a popular option for certain bidders to pursue if they wish to expedite the offer timetable. Those bidders that want to ensure from a tactical perspective that target company shareholders accept their offer in advance of Day 60 in order to ward off the threat of interlopers in the context of a potentially competitive situation may decide to issue an acceleration statement during the course of the offer period – I await the use of such tactics with interest,” he said.
Among the changes to the Code, Cain said that the decision by the Takeover Panel to allow target company shareholders who have accepted an offer to withdraw that acceptance at any time before the acceptance condition is satisfied was one of the most significant. This would have “practical ramifications” throughout the offer period, he said.
“This arguably removes the tactical advantage that a bidder has had previously, given that if a bidder’s first closing date was stipulated as day 39, then withdrawal rights could never be exercised – which is a tool that we utilised during IP Group’s hostile takeover of Touchstone Innovations,” he said.
“A hostile bidder in particular may see its acceptance levels fluctuate considerably during the course of an offer period, although significant emphasis will continue to be placed on ensuring that irrevocable undertakings are obtained from key institutional shareholders and that they contain robust provisions such that those institutions will not seek to exercise withdrawal rights throughout the course of the offer period,” he said.