DOJ Suit Against ValueAct Shines Spotlight on HSR Requirements for Shareholder Activists
Suit signals potential consequences for activist investors who rely on the HSR “solely for purposes of investment” exemption.
On April 4, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued certain ValueAct Capital entities for alleged violations of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR Act). DOJ alleges that ValueAct failed to report its purchases of a total of over US$2.5 billion in Halliburton and Baker Hughes voting securities. DOJ contends that ValueAct could not avail itself of the “solely for purposes of investment” exemption to HSR because ValueAct intended to influence the parties to pursue their US$35 billion merger and to participate in the parties’ strategic decision making.
Please see full Alert below for more information.
Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in the United
Kingdom, France, Italy and Singapore and as affiliated partnerships conducting the practice in Hong Kong and Japan. The Law Office of Salman M. Al-Sudairi is Latham & Watkins associated office in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Under New York’s Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend
upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding our conduct under New York’s Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 885 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-
4834, Phone: +1.212.906.1200. © Copyright 2016 Latham & Watkins. All Rights Reserved.
Latham & Watkins Antitrust & Competition
and Mergers & Acquisitions Practices
April 14, 2016 | Number 1953
DOJ Suit Against ValueAct Shines Spotlight on HSR
Requirements for Shareholder Activists
Suit signals potential consequences for activist investors who rely on the HSR “solely for
purposes of investment” exemption.
On April 4, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued certain ValueAct Capital entities for alleged
violations of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR Act). DOJ alleges that
ValueAct failed to report its purchases of a total of over US$2.5 billion in Halliburton and Baker Hughes
voting securities. DOJ contends that ValueAct could not avail itself of the “solely for purposes of
investment” exemption to HSR because ValueAct intended to influence the parties to pursue their US$35
billion merger and to participate in the parties’ strategic decision making.
At stake are substantial fines (~$19 million) and a possible federal court injunction prohibiting future
HSR violations that could impact the way ValueAct, and by implication other activist investors, pursue
stock accumulations. The suit underscores the importance of thoroughly assessing an investor’s
intentions before relying upon the HSR solely for purposes of investment exemption (sometimes
referred to as the “passive investor exemption”).
Even if DOJ’s complaint against ValueAct results in a decision that ValueAct’s conduct did not fall within
the solely for purposes of investment exemption, the case is not likely to meaningfully impede the ability
of activists to accumulate equity interests in a target company. Regardless of the outcome, DOJ’s
complaint against ValueAct stands as a warning shot across the bow of activist investors that they should
avoid actions that are inconsistent with a declared “investment only intent” if they intend to rely upon the
solely for purposes of investment exemption. The case could have other implications for stakeholders as
• If the ValueAct case results in a more narrow interpretation of the solely for purposes of investment
exemption, investors will be required (absent another exemption) to make an HSR filing before
accumulating shares in excess of the HSR dollar threshold. Consequently, more public companies
will have earlier notice of potential activist accumulations. This will be particularly relevant for larger
public companies for which the HSR filing threshold is below the 5% disclosure threshold under
Latham & Watkins April 14, 2016 | Number 1953 | Page 2
• Public companies seeking to mount an activist defense may wish to evaluate potential tactical and
strategic implications of the apparently more robust DOJ/Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
enforcement paradigm. Earlier advance notice of stock accumulations will afford a public company
the opportunity to engage with and respond to an activist investor sooner than would have been the
case if the exemption were available.
• There is no private right of action under the HSR Act, so public companies do not have standing to
file suit directly in response to suspected violations. However, public companies could use a
suspected violation as part of a so called “sand in the gears” tactic to discourage or delay an activist’s
share accumulation, including by contacting the agencies to report suspected violations.
• Even the threat of agency reporting could pressure an activist investor to delay an accumulation
strategy, pending receipt of HSR clearance, or otherwise create leverage for subsequent discussions
• The ValueAct case may drive activists to pursue accumulation strategies that focus on the acquisition
of non-voting economic interests (such as through derivative instruments or options) rather than
voting shares, as the former are not considered for purposes of the HSR filing requirements.
• In the wake of the DOJ complaint against ValueAct, activists are likely to be more conservative in
assessing the necessity of HSR filings. Both DOJ’s complaint and its pursuit of injunctive relief reflect
not only the increasingly aggressive enforcement posture of DOJ on these matters but also a focus
on perceived “repeat offenders.”
• Investors will need to be particularly cautious how they state their intentions with respect to a target
and how they engage with executives of the target
The HSR Act and the Solely for Purposes of Investment Exemption
Absent an exemption, the HSR Act requires that persons or entities must notify DOJ and the FTC before
making certain acquisitions of voting securities valued over US$78.2 million. When a buyer acquires
sufficient voting securities through a unilateral action (e.g., open market purchases), rather than a
negotiated agreement with the issuer, the buyer also must notify the issuer in writing of the pending
acquisition and the fact that the issuer must make an HSR filing. Parties cannot consummate transactions
subject to HSR until they have complied with the Act’s notification and waiting period requirements. The
Act subjects buyers who fail to comply with these requirements to fines of up to US$16,000 per day for
the period of non-compliance.
The HSR Act and the Rules promulgated under the HSR Act provide an exemption for acquisitions of
voting securities if (a) as a result of the acquisition, the acquiring person holds 10% or less of the
outstanding voting securities of the issuer, and (b) the acquisition is solely for the purpose of
investment. (16 CFR 802.9) Under the Rules, voting securities are held or acquired “solely for the
purpose of investment” if the person holding or acquiring such voting securities has no intention of
participating in the formulation, determination, or direction of the issuer’s basic business decisions. To
date, no court has considered the scope and application of this rule.
Latham & Watkins April 14, 2016 | Number 1953 | Page 3
The Statement of Basis and Purpose for the HSR Rules provides a non-exhaustive list of types of
conduct that may disqualify an investor from the exemption, including:
• Nominating a candidate for the board of directors of the issuer
• Proposing corporate action requiring shareholder approval
• Soliciting proxies
• Allowing a controlling shareholder, director, officer or employee simultaneously serve as an officer or
director of the issuer
• Competing against the issuer
Recent Enforcement and Guidance
Just last year, Third Point LLC agreed to settle FTC charges that Third Point improperly failed to report its
acquisitions of stock in Yahoo! Inc. The FTC alleged that Third Point’s actions were inconsistent with an
investment-only intent, and thus its acquisitions were not covered by the solely for purposes of investment
exemption. These actions included asking individuals if they would be interested in an executive or board
position at Yahoo, communicating to Yahoo that Third Point was prepared to join Yahoo’s board, and
internally discussing whether to launch a proxy battle for Yahoo directors. Third Point agreed to a
settlement with the FTC under which it was prohibited from relying on the investment-only exemption if it
had: contacted third parties to gauge their interest in joining the board of the target company;
communicated with the target company about proposed candidates for its board; or engaged in other
specified conduct in the four months prior to acquiring voting securities above the HSR Act threshold.
However, Third Point avoided any fines because it was the company’s first HSR violation, and the FTC
determined that the violation was inadvertent and short-lived.
Similarly, the Premerger Notification and Practice Manual (which the American Bar Association recently
published and the FTC reviewed) advises that the following actions (among others) are inconsistent with
investment-only intent: demanding the target’s shareholder list to discuss a proposed transaction,
retaining the services of a proxy solicitation firm, and planning to merge with, liquidate, or reorganize the
The Complaint Against ValueAct
Following the announcement of the proposed merger of Baker Hughes and Halliburton on November 17,
2014, ValueAct began acquiring shares in the two companies, exceeding the HSR filing threshold for
each within a few weeks. Relying on the solely for purposes of investment exemption, ValueAct did not
submit HSR filings for the acquisitions. According to DOJ’s complaint, ValueAct’s purchases did not
qualify for the solely for purposes of investment exemption because: (a) at the time of the purchases,
ValueAct planned to influence the business decisions and management of both companies, and
(b) ValueAct actively engaged with the executives of both companies to implement those plans.
DOJ has alleged over a dozen examples of ValueAct conduct that, according to the agency, disqualified
ValueAct from relying upon the exemption. Among the disqualifying conduct were documents that
allegedly indicate ValueAct’s intent to play an active role in the strategy of both companies. In one
instance, ValueAct allegedly circulated a memo to investors stating that its significant holdings in Baker
Hughes and Halliburton would enable ValueAct either to help close the deal, or to help the companies
modify the agreement to secure merger approval from DOJ. ValueAct also allegedly met with senior
executives of both companies to influence management, formulate business strategies and discuss
alternatives to closing the transaction. According to DOJ’s complaint, ValueAct proposed that Halliburton
buy pieces of Baker Hughes and offered to apply pressure to Baker Hughes to accept the deal. “In short,
Latham & Watkins April 14, 2016 | Number 1953 | Page 4
ValueAct offered to use its position as a shareholder to pressure Baker Hughes’s management to change
its business strategy in ways that could affect Baker Hughes’s competitive future,” DOJ alleged.
DOJ’s decision to pursue this case is consistent with its general practice to penalize companies that
repeatedly and/or intentionally neglect to submit required HSR filings. Correspondingly, the antitrust
agencies rarely pursue penalties for a company’s first inadvertent failure to comply with the HSR
requirements (as opposed to willful violations). Here, ValueAct had two prior HSR violations. The firm first
missed filings in 2003, and was required to submit corrective filings and outline an HSR compliance plan.
Then, two years later, the firm again failed to make required filings and paid a civil penalty of US$1.1
For this alleged third violation, DOJ has sought as relief both the available civil penalties as well as an
injunction from a federal court against further HSR Act violations. If the court grants the injunction,
ValueAct will not be able to rely on the solely for purposes of investment exemption for a specified period
of time if it takes any action that falls on the list of prohibited actions identified above, or otherwise acts in
a manner inconsistent with an “investment only” intent. If ValueAct violates the injunction, the firm could
be found in contempt, risking much greater civil penalties.
ValueAct has stated it intends to contest DOJ’s lawsuit. The firm’s willingness to litigate the case suggests
ValueAct believes that the agencies’ interpretation of the solely for purposes of investment exemption is
too narrow. If there is a judgment or other ruling in the case, it could provide the first judicial interpretation
of the scope of the exemption and could clarify the conditions by which the agencies can require HSR
filings from activist investors who pursue stock accumulations.
A link to DOJ’s press release can be found here.
If you have questions about this Client Alert, please contact one of the authors listed below or the Latham
lawyer with whom you normally consult:
Thomas W. Christopher
Bradley C. Faris
Chicago, New York
Mark D. Gerstein
Chicago, New York
Joshua N. Holian
Abbott (Tad) B. Lipsky, Jr.
Karen E. Silverman
E. Marcellus Williamson
Sydney M. Smith
Tiffany Fobes Campion
Patrick C. English
Latham & Watkins April 14, 2016 | Number 1953 | Page 5
You Might Also Be Interested In
Are You Prepared for Activist Investors?
Evolving Director-Investor Communications: Preparing for Your Board’s Engagement with Shareholders
2016 Proxy Season: Strategically Preparing for the Upcoming Season
Client Alert is published by Latham & Watkins as a news reporting service to clients and other friends.
The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further
analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the lawyer with whom you
normally consult. The invitation to contact is not a solicitation for legal work under the laws of any
jurisdiction in which Latham lawyers are not authorized to practice. A complete list of Latham’s Client
Alerts can be found at www.lw.com. If you wish to update your contact details or customize the
information you receive from Latham & Watkins, visit http://events.lw.com/reaction/subscriptionpage.html
to subscribe to the firm’s global client mailings program.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.