Revlon Rule
The Revlon Rule is a legal principle requiring directors to prioritize the maximization of shareholder value during a company's sale or takeover process.
What is the Revlon Rule
The Revlon rule, also known as the Revlon duty, is a legal principle that arises in the context of mergers and acquisitions. When an organization's board of directors considers a sale or any other shift in control transaction, they have a responsibility to maximize shareholder value.
The rule is named after Revlon, Inc., a cosmetics company that was involved in a high-profile takeover battle in the 1980s.
Revlon was the target of a hostile takeover bid by Pantry Pride, Inc. Revlon's board of directors initially resisted the bid and sought other alternatives but eventually agreed to sell the company to Forstmann Little & Co. for a lower price than Pantry Pride's offer.
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that by neglecting the maximization of shareholder value in the company's sale, the Revlon board had violated its fiduciary duties.
The court found that once Revlon had decided to sell the company, its directors had a duty to obtain the highest price available for the shareholders, even if that meant accepting a higher offer from Pantry Pride.
The Revlon rule has since been applied in many other cases involving changes in control.
The Revlon rule is derived from the broader principle of fiduciary duty that governs the behavior of corporate directors and officers.
Whenever an offer to sell or change control of the company is considered, the directors have an ethical obligation to look for the best terms for the firm's shareholders.
The rule applies specifically to situations where a change in control is imminent, such as when the company is the target of a hostile takeover bid.
The director's fiduciary obligation in these circumstances shifts from managing the firm for the long-term benefit of shareholders to working to secure the best feasible current deal for the company's shareholders.
The origins of the Revlon rule can be traced back to a landmark case in Delaware in 1985, Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.
It requires that the directors must conduct a comprehensive and unbiased assessment of all prospective bids and consider all aspects that can impact the value of the business, including the interests of other stakeholders like customers, workers, and creditors.
Others contend that this is required to safeguard shareholders from potential conflicts of interest among company management and to guarantee that they are paid fairly for their investments.
In recent years, the Revlon rule has been further refined and developed by courts and legal scholars
In some situations, such as when the firm is experiencing financial difficulty or when there may be other long-term benefits for shareholders, several courts have acknowledged exceptions to the norm.
Key Takeaways
- The Revlon rule remains an important principle in corporate law and governance, particularly in mergers and acquisitions.
- It is highlighted how crucial it is to safeguard shareholders' interests and guarantee they get fair value for their investments. Despite the rule's detractors, it reflects an important corporate governance principle that has long been acknowledged and upheld by courts.
- The board's obligation under the Revlon Rule is not limited to maximizing shareholder value but also includes considerations of the interests of all stakeholders, including employees, customers, and suppliers.
- This highlights the importance of corporate social responsibility and the need for boards to balance the interests of all stakeholders in making decisions related to change of control transactions.
- Takeovers may be the best option under the Revlon Rule when a company is in financial distress, a superior offer is made, or the board has exhausted all other options.
- The board must carefully consider factors such as the price and terms of the offer, alternative bidders, impact on employees, customers, and other stakeholders, and regulatory and legal considerations when evaluating takeover bids.
- The significance of the Revlon Rule in corporate law cannot be overstated. The Revlon Rule serves to protect the interests of shareholders and ensure that they receive fair value for their shares in a change of control transaction.
When the takeovers may be the best option under revlon Rule
The Revlon rule mandates that the board of directors maximizes shareholder value if a firm is the target of a takeover offer or is exploring a change in control transaction.
In certain circumstances, this can entail agreeing to a takeover offer or selling the business to a third party. This article explores when takeovers may be the best option under the rule and the factors that boards of directors should consider when evaluating takeover bids.
When the Company Is In Financial Distress
One situation where a takeover may be the best option under this rule is when the company is in financial distress.
The easiest way for shareholders to recover part of their investment may be through a takeover offer if the firm is having trouble keeping up with payments or operating as usual.
The board of directors may not have the option of exploring other options in such circumstances since they must decide promptly.
When A Superior Offer Is Made
Another situation where a takeover may be the best option is when a superior offer is made. Under the Revlon rule, the board of directors has a duty to obtain the highest price available for the company's shareholders.
The board of directors can be required to accept a bidder's superior offer if it offers shareholders more value than other options, even if doing so means rejecting a lesser offer from a prior bidder.
When The Board Of Directors Has Exhausted All Other Options
When the board of directors has tried all other options, a takeover might represent the best course of action in a third scenario.
Note
A takeover offer may be the only choice left if the firm has exhausted all other options, including restructuring and refinancing, and none of them will result in enough value for shareholders.
Factors To Consider When Evaluating Takeover Bids
Some of the factors that boards should consider when evaluating takeover bids include
- Price and Terms of the Offer: The offer's price and conditions should be considered before anything else when assessing a takeover proposal. The offer's fair value for shareholders and acceptability of the offer's conditions must be determined by the board of directors.
- Alternative Bidders: The possibility of competing bidders who could make larger offers must also be considered by the board of directors. If other potential bidders exist, the board may have a duty to explore these options before accepting an offer.
- Impact on Employees, Customers, and Other Stakeholders: If the takeover bid results in job losses, customer disruptions, or other negative impacts, the board must weigh these factors against the potential benefits for shareholders.
- Regulatory and Legal Considerations: The board of directors must also consider any regulatory or legal considerations associated with the takeover bid. If the bid raises antitrust concerns or is subject to other regulatory approvals, the board must ensure that these considerations are considered.
The Board's Obligation to Maximize Shareholder Value under Revlon Rule
A board of directors is under a greater obligation to increase shareholder value when a corporation is the subject of a change of ownership transaction under the Revlon Rule, commonly referred to as the Revlon Doctrine.
When it is obvious that a transaction such as a merger or acquisition will lead to a change in control of the business, the board of directors’ objective must switch from protecting the company's prospects to maximizing shareholder value.
The Revlon Rule mandates that the board of directors maximizes shareholder value in the belief that shareholders are the company's owners and that the board acts as their trustee.
To maximize shareholder value and operate in the greatest interests of the shareholders, the board must follow the law.
The Revlon Rule was established in 1986 in the case of Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. The case involved a hostile takeover bid by Pantry Pride for Revlon, Inc., which prompted Revlon to launch a search for a white knight to acquire the company.
During this process, Revlon's board of directors accepted an offer from Forstmann Little & Co. at a price lower than Pantry Pride's offer. Pantry Pride challenged the board's decision, arguing that it breached its fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value.
The court in Revlon held that when a change of control transaction is inevitable, the board's obligation shifts from the preservation of the company and its long-term prospects to maximizing shareholder value.
The court stated that the board's duty is not to "maintain independence, preserve jobs, or keep the company together," but rather to "get the best price for the shareholders."
While maximizing shareholder value is the board's primary duty it also has to consider how its choices will affect these other stakeholders and to take steps to mitigate any negative effects.
Legal academics have vigorously debated the rule, with some contending that is overemphasizes shareholder short-term benefits at the price of long-term firm growth and stability
The rule's detractors claim that it can result in hurried decisions and pressure to accept the highest bidder, even though the bidder's intentions might not be in the best interests of the business and its stakeholders.
In response to these criticisms, some courts have refined the rule to allow for greater flexibility in considering alternative transactions and allowing the board to pursue other options, even if they may not provide the highest price for shareholders.
Revlon Rule FAQs
The rule applies when a company is subject to a change of control transaction, such as a merger or acquisition.
The board's obligation under this rule is to maximize shareholder value when a company is subject to a change of control transaction.
Takeovers may be the best option under this rule when a company is in financial distress, a superior offer is made, or the board has exhausted all other options.
The board should consider several things when assessing takeover offers including the offer's price and conditions, potential rival bidders, and the effect on the company's customers, workers, and other stakeholders.
It is important in corporate law because it gives the board of directors a bigger responsibility to increase shareholder value if a company is involved in a shift of control transaction.
or Want to Sign up with your social account?