World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Fairness opinion

Article Id: WHEBN0014640553
Reproduction Date:

Title: Fairness opinion  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Mergers and acquisitions, Corporate finance, Valuation (finance), Sagent Advisors, Stone Key Partners
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Fairness opinion

A fairness opinion is a professional evaluation by an investment bank or other third party as to whether the terms of a merger, acquisition, buyback, spin-off, or privatization are fair.[1] It is rendered for a fee.[2][3] They are typically issued when a public company is being sold or entering into a merger or divesting themselves of a substantial division of their business. They can also be required in private transactions not involving a company that is traded on a public exchange,[4] as well as in circumstances other than mergers, such as a corporation exchanging debt for equity.[5]

Controversy

Controversy in financial and management circles surrounds the question of the objectivity of fairness opinions, as one aspect of the duty of care in the fairness of a transaction. A potential exists for a conflict of interest when an entity rendering an opinion may benefit from the transaction either directly or indirectly.[6] Directors and officers of the companies also may have an interest in the outcome of the proposed transaction.[7] In response, in the United States, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (then the National Association of Securities Dealers) issued its Rule 2290 to require disclosure by its members to minimize abuses;[8] this was approved in 2007 by the Securities and Exchange Commission.[9]

Equity and fairness

In the United States, in the context of stockholder lawsuits,[10] typically relating to the sale or merger of a public company, the Delaware Court of Chancery has required sufficient disclosures be made to a board of directors and shareholders to “provide a balanced, truthful account of all matters”[11] and said “When a document ventures into certain subjects, it must do so in a manner that is materially complete and unbiased by the omission of material facts.”[12] In a Memorandum Opinion in the CheckFree/Fiserv merger Chancellor Chandler underlined that the earlier In re Pure Resources Court had established the proper frame of analysis for disclosure of financial data: “[S]tockholders are entitled to a fair summary of the substantive work performed by the investment bankers upon whose advice the recommendations of their board as to how to vote on a merger or tender rely.”[13] According to the certification hypothesis fairness opinions may also serve the interest of the shareholders by mitigating informational asymmetries in corporate transactions.[14]

References

  1. ^ .JPKatz.com"About Fairness Opinions | JPKatz",
  2. ^ .Investorwords.com"Definition, Fairness Opinion",
  3. ^ (February 2001).Inc.comRalph Ward, "A Briefing On Fairness Opinions",
  4. ^ .Blackpartners.pl"Fairness Opinion in private transactions",
  5. ^ Jill R. Goodman[1]New York Times Dealbook
  6. ^ (February 2, 2006).CFO.comMarie Leone, "Fairness Opinion Neutrality Questioned",
  7. ^ Yasuhiro Ohta and Kenton K. Yee, "The Fairness Opinion Puzzle: Board Incentives, Information Asymmetry, and Bidding Strategy," Journal Of Legal Studies 37.1, pp. 229-272 (January 2008)
  8. ^ Cahill Gordon & Reindel, "FINRA Rule 2290: Required Disclosures in Fairness Opinions" (November 6, 2007)
  9. ^ "Fairness Opinions: SEC Approves New NASD Rule 2290 Regarding Fairness Opinions", FINRA Regulatory Notice 07-54. Effective Date: December 8, 2007.
  10. ^ v. 55, p. 1557.American University Law Review,Steven M. Davidoff, "Fairness Opinions",
  11. ^ Malone v. Brincat, 722 A.2d 5, 12 (Del. 1998)
  12. ^ In re Pure Resources, Inc. S’holders Litig., 808 A.2d 421 (Del. Ch. 2002), pp. 447-8.
  13. ^ C.A. No. 3193-CC (Del. Ch. Oct. 18, 2007), Memorandum Opinion, Consolidated Civil Action No. 3193-CC (November 1, 2007).In re CheckFree Corp. S’holders Litig.,
  14. ^ Pierfrancesco LaMura, Marc Steffen Rapp, Bernhard Schwetzler, Andreas Wilms, “The Certification Hypothesis of Fairness Opinions”, 2009)

External links

Example Fairness Opinions (SEC filings) relating to the merger of Merck & Co., Inc. and Schering-Plough Corporation:

  • J.P. Morgan
  • Goldman Sachs
  • Morgan Stanley
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from National Public Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.