• 23 Aug 2012 at 4:11 PM
  • M&A

Come Back Carl Icahn! CVR Energy Still Loves You! Or Something.

I remain fascinated by this Carl Icahn – CVR Energy situation and wanted to add two curlicues to my conspiracy theory for why he dropped his bid.

First: while it’s fun to think that he may be unable to pay above $30 for a CVR merger due to let’s say imperfections in his tender offer documentation, there’s another, more broadly applicable, reason not to go above $30. That is: Carl Icahn is a repeat player. He bids for companies sometimes. And if you make a habit of (1) buying 80% of a company in a tender offer for $30 and (2) buying the remaining 20% in a merger a few months later for $31, then you may find it harder to get anyone to tender in your tender offer. Why not hold out for more?, they think, plausibly.

Thus it’s actually a very good idea for Icahn to be a raging asshole to the remaining 20% stub:* the worse he treats them, the more likely the shareholders of his next target are to tender. The holdouts in this deal gambled and lost and are now holding an illiquid stub that they may well end up selling to him on the open market for less than his tender price. Any potential holdouts in his next deal should be quaking in their hypothetical boots.

This only goes so far, though, because the more of a raging asshole you are, the more boards can do to keep you out of the next deal. A guy well known as a defender of shareholder rights against entrenched management tends to be able to put a lot more PR – and legal – pressure on boards than a guy well known for taking advantage of minority shareholders. And Delaware courts at least pay lip service to the idea that boards have more leeway to keep out – via poison pills, etc. – raiders who “coerce” shareholders than those who don’t (see, e.g., etc.).

So Icahn is in a weird position. His initial offer to the board for “$29, negotiable, but no more than $30″ is … I mean, when you say “we are offering X but could go up to Y,” that is self-evidently an offer of Y. (Try it with a car dealer!) So he basically proposed to pay $30 on the back end, the same as he paid in the tender. He couldn’t pay less than $30 to avoid looking like the worst sort of corporate raider. And – both for precedent reasons and also maybe for contract reasons – he can’t pay more than $30. So he offered $30, with an anchoring fake offer of $29 to make it look more attractive. Now that $30 isn’t so attractive, the only-at-$30 deal can’t be done so might as well withdraw it.

Second: let’s say I’m right and the documents require Icahn to pay out his contingent cash payment rights if he pays over $30 for the stub. This means that every dollar above $30 he pays for the stub actually costs him about $4.68. That’s bad.

But! There’s a potential upside. Let’s say Icahn pays $31 for the remaining stub of shares. By my math that costs him $542mm and leaves him with 100% of the company. But the contingent cash payment right that Icahn gave to investors who tendered in his first-stage tender offer is a one-shot deal.** In other words, if he buys the remaining stub for $31 – or $32 or $33 or $30.01 for that matter – then he has to pay the same amount to everyone who tendered in the first offer, but then he never has to pay them again. If he then sells the company for $35, he collects $35 per share on every share and doesn’t have to give a penny to the shareholders he cashed out at $31 (or $32 or $33 or $30.01).

In other words, it gives Icahn the ability to get rid of the CCP by himself, as long as he can convince the board to agree to the deal. If he actually thinks he can get $35 for CVR in the next year, then buying out everyone at $31 today and cutting off their tail upside in the stock seems like a pretty good trade for Icahn. Though perhaps one that the board would find suspicious.***

* And also to Goldman Sachs. I know: it’s always a good idea to be a raging asshole to Goldman Sachs.

** I think that’s reasonably clear from Section 14(b), providing that the CCP terminates after payment following a CCP Transaction Date.

*** Would they? What are a board’s fiduciary duties to former shareholders who have only a CCP? Isn’t this deal great?

20 comments (hidden to protect delicate sensibilities)
Show all comments ↓

Comments (20)

  1. Posted by InfiniteGuest | August 23, 2012 at 4:26 PM

    I was talking to my friend the other day – he's deep in debt, got foreclosed out of his home, and has been looking for work for months – and he said what would help him out more than anything else is if Icahn pays at least $31 for the CVR Energy shares he doesn't already own.

  2. Posted by Y. Smirnoff | August 23, 2012 at 4:32 PM

    In Soviet Russia, home foreclose YOU

  3. Posted by VonSloneker | August 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM

    Why does anyone care what this Ichan guy does or says? He's an aging billionaire without an asian wife…he obviously lacks judgement.

    – George and Rupert

  4. Posted by Guest | August 23, 2012 at 4:46 PM

    Hey!

    – Mark Zuckerberg

  5. Posted by Lowly Assistant | August 23, 2012 at 4:54 PM

    $29 shares is what the subprime is in trouble.

    Similarly, I fucking loved Icon with Patrick Swayze.

    -Not Gay, But A Fan Of Their Work

  6. Posted by Motives Be Damned | August 23, 2012 at 4:58 PM

    Get back to work Mister "I'm CEO Bitch."

    – Priscilla Chan Zuckerberg, Crass varadictorian, mally birrionaire scool
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/15/us-chin

  7. Posted by E. Cartman | August 23, 2012 at 5:03 PM

    In SLABS America, FFELP foreclose YOU!

  8. Posted by 25thHourTrader | August 23, 2012 at 8:08 PM

    If he wants to buy the whole company for less than $30.01, why doesn't he just place an order to buy all outstanding shares limit $30.00?

    -Recent GS hire showing why it's probably not a good idea to replace expensive smart people with cheap stupid people.

  9. Posted by The_Competitor | August 23, 2012 at 8:32 PM

    I recall a 90 percent SEC rule.
    If someone obtains 90 percent of a public company, then he has to buy the rest?
    Anybody remember reading this somewhere???

  10. Posted by UBS Trading MD | August 23, 2012 at 8:34 PM

    Hey, that's a good idea, I may just try that myself!

    Whoops, welp, I sure hope that a grateful CVR shareholder has some room in their driveway for a '98 accord and a spot on their couch for the guy who just cashed them out at $301

  11. Posted by UBS Merger Arb Quant | August 23, 2012 at 9:03 PM

    Short answer, I don't think you're remembering that correctly.

    I believe you're thinking of a short form merger / squeeze out, it's a state law thing and just means when you own a certain amount (yes usually 90%) you can take over the rest of the company without a shareholder vote. It's kind of common sense since back in the days of physical certificates plenty would just get lost, destroyed, eaten by Chris Christie, whatevs. I'm pretty sure there's no affirmative action to take the remaining people out though.

    -Not a lawyer but firmly believe I'm verbose enough to be one, oddly my applications to WLRK, Cravath and Skadden citing that qualification alone have not been responded to.

  12. Posted by vitamin | August 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM

    This is exactly the thing I’ve been hunting for! Wonderful and thanks!

  13. Posted by reader | August 24, 2012 at 5:31 AM

    really good point; interesting writing style – bit vulgar but very effective

  14. Posted by Safe Sound | September 4, 2012 at 8:48 AM

    Nice blog do you fancy renting banner ad space for a monthly fee?

  15. Posted by Sarkofakgg | September 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

    in the foreground
    on the top left corner
    on the bottom of the picture
    on the top of the picture

  16. Posted by kamagrą | September 12, 2012 at 9:28 PM

    Hey, the name’s Eirik, I co run a label/community called Pause. Anyhows, we have a section especially devoted to free downloadable indie game soundstracks. So maybe we can work something more permanent out? Contact me at arctopus gmail

  17. Posted by kindiukof | September 12, 2012 at 11:57 PM

    My spouse and I absolutely enjoy your weblog and find almost all of your post’s to be exactly what I’m searching for. Does 1 offer guest writers to write content material for you personally? I wouldn’t mind creating a post or elaborating on plenty of the subjects you write with regards to here. Once again, awesome weblog!

  18. Posted by poznaj kamagre | September 24, 2012 at 8:55 PM

    I was justified looking for this info pro a while. After 6 hours of ceaseless Googleing, absolutely I got it in your cobweb site. I be thunderstruck what’s the need of Google master plan that do not power this variety of educational websites in kamagra na erekcje cork of the list. Large the top sites are satiated of garbage.

  19. Posted by Sharen Annis | October 3, 2012 at 4:50 AM

    Otto’s from remark one just opened up in my hood in Brookline, MA, but I wasn’t impressed. Perhaps the formula won’t travel.

  20. Posted by Click Here | October 5, 2012 at 12:26 AM

    This post is worth everyone’s attention. Where can I find out more?