Skip to main content
Date
Rule
801.10
Staff
Michael Verne
Response/Comments
Agree, as long as these are bona fide consulting contracts they are not part of the consideration for the assets.

Question

May 5, 2004

HAND DELIVERY

Mr. Michael Verve
Compliance Specialist
Premerger Notification Office
Bureau of Competition
Federal Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20580

Re:Incentive Payment to Certain Shareholders Not Treated as Consideration forCompany Assets

DearMr. Verne

This is to confirm my telephone conversation with you onMarch 30, 2004, in which you agreed that a cash payment from a third person tocertain shareholders of a target corporate entity would not constituteadditional consideration for the purchase by one corporate entity of the assetsof the target corporate entity.

FACTS:

Company Aintends to acquire assets from Company B (the "ProposedTransaction"). Company A and Company B have some common shareholders, noneof which control either company for HSR purposes. However, one group ofshareholders of Company B who are members of a single family (the "RelatedShareholders") can prevent the sale of the subject assets based on theirfifty percent aggregate ownership of Company B.

Company Aand Company X have common shareholders who in the aggregate own more than fiftypercent of then voting stock in each company. Company X intends to make a cashpayment to some of the Related Shareholders to induce them to agree to the saleof Company B's assets. The form of the inducement will be a contact to provideconsulting services to Company X. Company X has valid business reasons formaking the inducement payment, because Company X believes that the ProposedTransaction will enhance the business of Company X and therefore, will benefitthe shareholders of Company X.

ANALYSISAND CONCLUSION:

Company Aand Company B are their own ultimate parent entities because no singleshareholder holds' fifty percent (or more) of the voting stock nor does anysingle shareholder have a contractual right to appoint fifty percent (or more)of either entities' board of directors. The value of a transaction betweenCompany A and Company B would include the payment of monies to Company B forthe subject assets. However, the value of such transaction would not includethe cash Payment from Company X to the Related Shareholders. This is truebecause Company A and Company X are separate persons under the HSR rules ofpractice. Thus, the payment by Company X to the Related Shareholders is notadditional consideration for the assets that Company A acquires from Company B.

If youwish to discuss the matter further, please telephone me at (redacted). Thankyou for your time band consideration in this matter.

About Informal Interpretations

Informal interpretations provide guidance from previous staff interpretations on the applicability of the HSR rules to specific fact situations. You should not rely on them as a substitute for reading the Act and the Rules themselves. These materials do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice.

Learn more about Informal Interpretations.