private equity

Subscribe to private equity via RSS

Companies previously considered immune from activist campaigns have come under pressure, driving new public and private deal opportunities for private equity.

By Richard Butterwick, Christopher Drewry, Tom Evans, Harald Selzner, David Walker, Ben Coleman, and Catherine Campbell

US shareholder activists are an established presence in Europe. In 2018, activist campaigns targeted 160 European companies, according to Activist Insight. In the UK, 17 companies faced activist demands in the first quarter of 2019 alone. Activist funds have prompted public company boards to look more critically at their portfolio and product mixes, as well as their geographical footprints, either to avoid activist attention or to respond to activist activity.

Click for larger image.

M&A activist campaigns that advocate for breakup or take-private transactions create obvious opportunities for PE firms. However, deal teams should take note of both recent activist strategies in the US and developments in the broader activist landscape. In our view, such strategies and developments will likely spread to Europe and create new PE opportunities.

Persisting political and economic uncertainty means awareness of market changes remains crucial.

By Simon Baskerville, Tom Evans, David Walker, Stephanie Dellosa, and Catherine Campbell

The 2008 distress cycle triggered defaults and restructurings for European PE portfolio companies, as maintenance covenant defaults and balance sheet deleveraging forced refinancings and debt-for-equity swaps. While restructuring conditions for PE firms are stronger in 2019 than they were in 2008, persisting political and economic uncertainty means that awareness of market developments remains important.

Permissive Intercreditor Arrangements Impact Schemes of Arrangement

UK loan document developments have made new and more flexible tools available for sponsors to effect debtor-led restructuring processes. In response to the 2008 crisis and a sponsor-driven market, we have begun to see increasingly accommodative intercreditor documentation, reducing the need for court-sanctioned schemes of arrangement in restructuring deals. Previously, a scheme of arrangement (requiring the support of 75% in value and a simple majority in number of affected classes, e.g., lenders) was needed to restructure a company’s debt, where unanimous consent of lenders was not possible. It is now common for intercreditor agreement terms to circumvent the need for a scheme of arrangement and, therefore, the court process for certain forms of restructuring, including debt-for- equity swaps. This allows restructurings to be effected contractually with lower levels of support, such as a simple majority. In our view, this positive development for private equity firms allows portfolio companies to more easily reach agreement with lenders and effect quicker, more cost-effective, and private restructurings.

Cornerstone investments can assist a firm’s overall exit objective, particularly when there are bidders for a portfolio company but no outright buyer.

By James Inness, Tom Evans, David Walker, Sonica Tolani, Connor Cahalane, and Catherine Campbell

Cornerstone investments, which involve taking a stake in an about-to-list company, have been popular in Asia and in Nordic countries for several years, and are becoming a more regular feature in European deals. The £300 million IPO of peer-to-peer lender Funding Circle in November 2018 and the £2.18 billion IPO of payment processor Network International in April 2019 were both completed with cornerstone investments of around 10%.

Why Consider a Cornerstone Investment?

Despite difficult market conditions, we have seen continued interest in IPOs from PE firms, either as a sole exit option or alongside auctions in a dual-track process. Cornerstone investments can assist a firm’s overall exit objective, particularly if a firm attracts bidders for a portfolio company but fails to find an outright buyer. Strong early support from cornerstone investors can help with marketing an IPO to other investors, increasing the likelihood of a successful listing and paving the way for an exit.

With the explosion of AI applications, private equity houses and their portfolio companies must understand where key opportunities lie.

By Tom Evans, Kem Ihenacho, David Walker, Laura Holden, Hector Sants, Claudia Sousa, Catherine Campbell, and Patricia Kelly

Click for larger image.

Artificial intelligence (AI) developments provide increasing opportunities for private equity, including deal sourcing and portfolio company analysis/enhancement, particularly in businesses that can adopt a customer subscription model or leverage big data opportunities. However, the adoption of AI technologies, and investments in new AI businesses, pose significant challenges. To ensure that time and capital are deployed productively, firms must understand the market space and usage for these tools, and the workings and accuracy of any underlying technology. How technology models and algorithms work, where underlying IP resides, and where data is stored are key. Whilst the use of AI is often discussed, it is much less often understood; we are seeing an explosion of AI applications and PE houses and their portfolio companies need to understand where the opportunities are for them to exploit.

A Tool to Secure Deal Opportunities and Drive Portfolio Company Growth 

According to a survey conducted by Intertrust, 90% of private equity firms expect AI to have a transformative impact on the industry. AI-backed data analytics are playing a growing role in analysing and identifying deals. QuantCube Technology, for example, provides in-depth data analysis, drawing on customer reviews and social media posts to develop predictive indicators of events, such as economic growth or price changes. There are now companies offering AI-driven technologies that claim to help source PE deals. While this presents a potentially compelling use of AI for investors, it remains to be seen whether these technologies will deliver results. 

We examine: increasing focus on non-controlling stakes, burdensome document production requests, heightened enforcement of gun jumping rules, examination of vertical deal overlaps, and ongoing political developments.

By John Colahan, Peter Citron, Calum Warren, David Walker, Tom Evans, and Catherine Campbell

In a continually evolving antitrust landscape, we consider five key trends that PE deal teams should be aware of.

Focus on Non-Controlling Stakes in Competing Companies

Antitrust authorities are paying closer attention to “common ownership”, the simultaneous ownership of non-controlling stakes in competing companies, with the EU’s Competition Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, publicly stating that the European Commission is looking “carefully” into the issue. While public companies were the initial focus, we expect that private companies will face a similar level of scrutiny. As co-investment deals and non-controlling acquisitions become more common, deal teams should not assume that acquiring a minority position will mean that antitrust issues cannot arise.

Increasingly Burdensome Document Production Requests

Burdensome document requests from the European Commission and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) have become more frequent – both regulators are now adopting a more fulsome US-style approach to document production. PE firms need to consider communications made in preparation for and during a deal, and how these may be viewed by competition authorities. Requests for third-party reports, sale documents, and even emails between buyers, sellers, shareholders, and customers are not uncommon. When faced with document requests, firms need to engage in early coordination to handle authorities’ information requests, manage carefully the search and production of discovery materials, and address attorney-client privilege protections and data privacy safeguards. Even if transactions ultimately do not raise substantive concerns, fines can be imposed and delays to transaction timetables can occur as a result of non-compliance.

European regulators’ openness to PE investors is presenting attractive banking sector opportunities, but such opportunities require careful regulatory planning and local issue navigation.

By Carl Fernandes, Hans-Jürgen Luett, David Walker, Tom Evans, and Catherine Campbell

Ten years ago, a PE investment in a European bank would have been a rare occurrence. However, more recently, PE firms have deployed capital in the banking sector, encouraged by changing regulatory perceptions of PE bidders. Apollo, together with parallel investors, acquired the former German subsidiary of KBC Bank NV, which since then has completed several add-on acquisitions, kicking off a series of German bank deals. PE firms including Cerberus, JC Flowers, and Blackstone have also completed bank buyouts, as European regulators become more open to financial sponsors — a trend we see continuing in 2019.

What Is Driving European Bank Transactions?

Click for larger image.

Disposal requests from the European Commission — as a consequence of breaching subsidy regulations — and regulatory reform have produced deal opportunities. The emergence of new growth markets has drawn the interest of PE, underlined by Blackstone’s €1 billion deal for Baltic lender Luminor. New technology and digital products have also attracted interest, as demonstrated by Cerberus’ acquisition of French consumer business GE Money Bank. Further, control of non-performing loans has meant less unpredictable downside risk for acquirers, but potential upside through enhanced operational efficiency (e.g., adopting FinTech) and exploiting scalability (e.g., through consolidation). As ever, distressed situations also present opportunities.

As litigation funders find new disputes markets, PE firms should consider litigation funding as a growth sector — and as a valuable tool for de-risking portfolio company claims.

By Stuart Alford, Dan Smith, David Walker, Tom Evans, and Catherine Campbell

Litigation funding, the third-party financing of legal costs in disputes, is increasingly common in the UK. As litigants have become comfortable with sophisticated litigation funders, these funders are responding to business needs, and finding new disputes markets. The UK litigation funding landscape has begun to resemble the US, where external parties commonly finance a wide range of claims in return for a share of any ultimate litigation win. In our view, PE firms should consider litigation funding as a growth sector — and as a valuable tool for de-risking portfolio company claims.

Click for larger image.

Litigation Funding: Drivers of a Growing Market

Click for larger image.

Litigation funding is finding new markets. Increased use of group redress and group litigation orders is creating demand for funding. Following trends visible in American class action litigation, European legal systems are developing new group redress claims procedures. Germany and the Netherlands have well-established systems, and other jurisdictions (including the UK) are heading in the same direction. In fact, 60% of shareholder group actions are now outside the US. Group litigation includes related claims, e.g., mass torts affecting a large number of defendants, or similar-fact claims such as device malfunctions, or the VW emissions scandal. Group litigation can also facilitate unified actions where individual claims are financially unviable, such as shareholder actions.

Regulatory guidance on cryptoassets and digital currency companies may lead to a legitimisation of crypto-businesses as an investable asset class.

By Stuart Davis, Sam Maxson, David Walker, Tom Evans, and Catherine Campbell

Recent and upcoming regulatory guidance on cryptoassets and the regulation of companies engaged in digital currency, such as issuers, crypto-exchanges, crypto-custodians, crypto-brokers, and other service providers, could help facilitate private equity investment in this space. While there has been some institutional investment in crypto-businesses — such as Goldman Sachs’ investment in Circle (owners of the Poloniex crypto-currency exchange) and Tiger Global’s investment in Coinbase — this has been a relatively nascent market with most money coming in the form of early-stage and venture investing.

Click for larger image.

Drivers of Volatility in Cryptoassets Values

Regulatory uncertainty has been a key driver in dampening the market value of cryptoassets. Regulators around the globe have issued warnings that cryptoassets may be regulated financial instruments, and issuers and intermediaries may require licences. Further, the application of AML/KYC rules to cryptoassets has been unclear.

By Catherine Drinnan and Shaun Thompson

Click for larger image.

This year has seen a significant number of business failures, particularly on the high street, as businesses have struggled in the face of market fragility and Brexit uncertainty. When a UK portfolio company is underperforming, the presence of a defined benefit pension (DB) plan with a large deficit can be a significant problem. Companies with large pension deficits require contributions that affect cash flow and make exiting more difficult when the time comes to sell.

If a business slips into distressed territory, however, there are mechanisms whereby a company can divest itself of a DB scheme. As companies respond to Brexit and challenging conditions in some sectors, we believe that 2019 will see more of these types of arrangements. In our view, PE deal teams should consider how to respond if portfolio companies are at risk. While the mechanisms can be effective in allowing a company to continue trading (in some form), PE owners should note a number of important factors before deciding to attempt this.

By Drew Levin, Maarten Overmars, and Catherine Campbell

Click for larger image.

Warranty and indemnity insurance (W&I) has become a common feature of European transactions in recent years, amid a strong sellers’ market that has enabled vendors to offload risk to buyers. According to the most recent edition of the Latham & Watkins Private M&A Market Study, which examined transactions between July 2016 and June 2018, the proportion of transactions employing W&I has continued to increase — from 8%, 13%, and 22% of deals in the previous three editions of the survey, to 32% for the latest period surveyed. We believe PE deal teams should be aware of changes and enhancements to W&I that will bring insurance coverage closer in line with the US market. In our view, the developments are positive for PE bidders.

The Impact of US Buyers on European W&I Policy Terms

US buyers are very active in the European deal market, and their influence is becoming increasingly evident in W&I terms. US buyers are pushing for more US-like W&I terms on European deals, and the changes have enhanced policies. Insurers are thinking outside of the box and providing new products. We believe US PE bidders will reap the benefits as policies begin to resemble their home market and PE bidders from other jurisdictions will also benefit as terms become enhanced.