BAE Systems and EADS Say They Are in Merger Talks
The bombshell announcement of a possible tie-up between EADS and BAE Systems is only that – a possibility. Before a deal can be reached, the intense national issues surrounding this merger still need to be navigated.
And a review of the parties’ announcement shows that multiple governments will be involved and extremely complex agreements will need to be negotiated. In other words, a combination may take a while — if it ever comes.
In their announcement, EADS and BAE Systems stated that if they agreed to a transaction the two companies would not actually combine; instead, they would enter into a dual-listed company structure. The two stated that “both companies would operate as one group by means of equalization and other agreements but would be separately listed on their existing exchanges.”
As I have written before, such a deal “is a virtual merger structure utilized in cross-border transactions. The companies do not actually effect an acquisition of one another, but instead enter into an unbelievably complex set of agreements in which they agree to equalize their shares, run their operations collectively and share equally in profits, losses, dividends and any liquidation.” These arrangements are entered into by agreement and not by combining the two companies.
A dual-listed company structure has traditionally been used instead of a full merger when there are tax issues related to dividends. The two companies, based in different countries, will want their local shareholders to continue to have their dividends taxed by the home country to take advantage of local quirks and avoid foreign withholding.
The best examples of this are BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto which are both dual-listed companies involving a British public limited company and an Australian public limited company. The reason is to allow Australian stockholders to take advantage of a dividend tax credit that British shareholders cannot. British shareholders thus invest in the British company (e.g. BHP) and Australian ones in the Australian entity (e.g., Billiton).
There are other reasons to use a dual-listed company structure. Flow-back – where shareholders of a target subsequently sell shares issued by an acquiring company from another country leading the shares to return to that country — is also a common problem in big cross-border deals. The shareholders of the company that is disappearing will sell their shares either because they are mutual funds that cannot hold foreign shares or because they prefer local investments.
A dual-listed company can stop this flow by allowing shareholders to retain a local investment option. In fact, the crucial point of a dual-listed company is that the shares are not exchangeable. A holder in BHP-Billiton’s Australian company – again, the Billiton part — cannot exchange their shares for the BHP part. They really are separate companies.
Finally, a dual-listed company is a way to salve issues of national pride or national security allowing the combined entity to claim two homes.
EADS and BAE Systems are likely to use a dual-listed company structure for all three reasons. BAE is an English company and EADS is a Dutch one. Prior examples of Dutch/English dual-listed companies include Royal Dutch Shell, Reed Elsevier and Unilever, all of which used this arrangement to preserve national heritage and dividend tax treatment.
But in all probability, the nationality issue was the primary driver for the BAE-EADS talks. BAE is an aerospace institution that was once owned by the British government. EADS was formed in 2000 by a merger of industrial companies from Spain, France and Germany. The Netherlands was picked as the locus of incorporation for EADS because it is neutral territory. Today, 49.35 percent of EADS’s shares are owned by the public, with the French government and the German company Daimler controlling a 22.35 percent interest each and Spain a 5.45 percent interest.
A dual-listed company structure thus allows BAE to preserve its British heritage while EADS can still claim to be a Continental European company that will still be owned by these French, German and Spanish entities.
But by contractual agreement, EADS shareholders and BAES shareholders will now vote as a group for the boards of both companies, which will be identical. Even then, though, the EADS shareholders will still wield substantial influence. According to the announcement, the combination will give EADS shareholders 60 percent and BAE shareholders 40 percent control.
As a further sop to national interests, the two companies announced that “the parties envisage issuing special shares in BAE Systems and EADS to each of the French, German and U.K. governments to replace the existing U.K. government share in BAE Systems and the stakeholder concert party arrangements in EADS.” These special shares, also known as golden shares, will allow the four countries to veto any subsequent takeover of the combined entity and may provide other rights.
In addition, both companies have extensive worldwide defense operations, and BAE in particular has built up its United States presence. The companies will have to make arrangements with the United States government and obtain national security clearance for any tie-up. BAE and EADS anticipate that the United States government will require that BAE’s defense interests be kept separate from EADS, announcing that “certain of their defense activities would be ringfenced” specifically mentioning the United States as one place where this would have to happen.
Dual-listed companies are notoriously complex beasts. They require intricate contractual documentation and negotiation that can take months if not years to complete. In this case, the structure of this combination needs to be coordinated with national governments not only in Europe but to account for United States security demands.
Under the British takeover rules, the parties are now required to announce a transaction by Oct. 10 or obtain an extension from Britain’s Takeover Panel. Given what is at stake, expect that an extension will be needed.
