Corporate & Securities Law

Analysis: Cerberus/United Rentals MAC Clause Dispute

By broc

Analysis: Cerberus/United Rentals MAC Clause Dispute

Geoffrey Parnass gives us the following thoughts from his blog - "PrivateEquityLawReview.com" - about the Cerberus/United Rentals spat:

Does Cerberus have the unilateral right to walk away from its deal with United Rental and limit its exposure to a break up fee of $100 million? Or does United Rentals have the right to specifically enforce the merger agreement? That's the issue at the heart of lawsuits currently pending in Delaware and New York arising out of this failed acquisition.

Cerberus had this to say about United Rental's Delaware action for specific performance in a press release issued November 19th:

"We believe that United Rentals has been less than forthright in its legal filings and its communications concerning those filings. The fact is that RAM negotiated for and obtained the right to withdraw from the Merger Agreement of July 22, 2007 and instead make a one-time payment in the aggregate amount of US $100 million. This ability to walk away from the transaction with this limited exposure was specifically bargained for, is clearly and unambiguously stated in the Merger Agreement and related documentation, and is not in any way conditional on the occurrence of a material adverse change, the termination of the Merger Agreement by United Rentals or any other event."

Also, according to Bloomberg, Cerberus started its own lawsuit in New York Supreme Court seeking a declaration that its maximum exposure to United Rentals is $100 million. In the suit, Cerberus says United Rentals has no remedy other than the right to pursue the $100 million break-up fee, which serves as a cap for any or all losses or damages relating to or arising out of the merger agreement.

Let's see where that clear and unambiguous statement appears in the merger agreement. Section 8.2(c) of the agreement says:

"In the event that this Agreement is terminated by [United Rentals] pursuant to Section 8.1(d)(i) or Section 8.1(d)(ii), then [Cerberus] shall pay $100,000,000 to [United Rentals] as promptly as reasonably practicable (and, in any event, within two business days following such termination), payable by wire transfer of same day funds."

OK then. Section 8.1(d)(i) says that United Rental can terminate the agreement upon certain breaches by Cerberus of the merger agreement, and Section 8.1(d)(ii) says that United Rental can terminate the agreement if the merger isn't completed by a certain date. Neither of these things has happened, and United Rentals isn't seeking the fee.

Later on, in Section 8.2(e), there is a clause limiting liability for termination events to $100 million. It says that United Rental's right to terminate the merger agreement under Sections 8.1(d)(i) or (ii) and receive the $100 million fee under Section 8.2(c) is the "sole and exclusive remedy" of United Rentals against Cerberus for "any and all loss or damage suffered as a result thereof" and Cerberus shall not have "any further liability or obligation of any kind or nature relating to or arising out of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Agreement as a result of such termination." This fee is "the sole and exclusive remedy for recovery" in the event of "the termination of this Agreement by [United Rentals] in compliance with the provisions of Section 8.1(d)(i) or (ii)."

So far, it looks as though United Rentals has the winning position, as this language pretty clearly says that the $100 million payment is the sole remedy only in the situation where United Rentals has terminated the merger agreement due to a misrepresentation or failed deadline. Up until now, there isn't any absolute cap on liability if Cerberus breaches the agreement and walks away.

But keep reading. At the very end of Section 8.2(e), comes the provision that finally supports Cerberus:

"In no event, whether or not this Agreement has been terminated pursuant to any provision hereof, shall [Cerberus], either individually or in the aggregate, be subject to any liability in excess of [$100 million] for any or all losses or damages relating to or arising out of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, including breaches by [Cerberus] of any representations, warranties, covenants or agreements contained in this Agreement, and in no event shall [United Rentals] seek equitable relief or seek to recover any money damages in excess of such amount from [Cerberus]."

That's pretty clear. Although there is plenty of language in the agreement that appears to support United Rentals' position, this one sentence appearing at the end of Section 8.2(e) seems to cap Cerberus' exposure at $100 million. The stock market seems to agree as well.

Full post as published by DealLawyers.com Blog on November 26, 2007 (boomark / email).