Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

A Reverse Morris Trust Transaction: The Pringles Potato Chip Saga [1] [1] The deal discussed in this case is for illustration only. Following the disclosure

A Reverse Morris Trust Transaction:

The Pringles Potato Chip Saga[1]

[1] The deal discussed in this case is for illustration only. Following the disclosure that Diamond Food's reported earnings were subject to substantial revision due to accounting irregularities, Proctor & Gamble invoked a material adverse change clause to terminate the purchase agreement in 2012.

Following a rigorous portfolio review and an informal expression of interest in the Pringles brand by Diamond Foods (Diamond) in late 2009, Proctor & Gamble (P&G), the world's leading manufacturer of household products, believed that Pringles could be worth more to its shareholders if divested than if retained. Pringles is the iconic potato chip brand, with sales in 140 countries and operations in the United States, Europe, and Asia.

Diamond's executive management had long viewed the Pringles' brand as an attractive fit for their strategy of building, acquiring, and energizing brands. The acquisition of Pringles would triple the size of the firm's snack business and provide greater merchandising influence in the way in which its products are distributed. The merger would also give Diamond a substantial presence in Asia, Latin America, and Central Europe. The increased geographic diversity means the firm would derive almost one-half of its revenue from international sales.

After extended negotiations, Diamond and P&G announced on April 15, 2011, their intent to merge P&G's Pringles subsidiary into Diamond in a transaction valued at $2.35 billion. The purchase price consisted of $1.5 billion in Diamond common stock, valued at $51.47 per share, and Diamond's assumption of $850 million in Pringles outstanding debt. The way in which the deal was structured enabled P&G shareholders to defer any gains they realize from the transaction and resulted in a one-time after-tax earnings increase for P&G of $1.5 billion due to the firm's low tax basis in Pringles.

The offer to exchange Pringle shares for P&G shares reduced the number of outstanding P&G common shares, partially offsetting the impact on P&G's earnings per share of the loss of Pringles earnings. Diamond agreed to issue one share of its common stock for each Pringles common share. The 29.1 million common shares issued by Diamond resulted in P&G shareholders' participating in the exchange offer, owning a 57% stake in the combined firms, with Diamond's shareholders owning the remainder.

The deal was structured as a reverse Morris Trust acquisition, which combines a divisive reorganization (e.g., a spin-off or a split-off) with an acquisitive reorganization (e.g., a statutory merger) to allow a tax-free transfer of a subsidiary under U.S. law. The use of a divisive reorganization results in the creation of a public company that is subsequently merged into a shell subsidiary (i.e., a privately owned company) of another firm, with the shell surviving.

The structure of the deal involved four discrete steps, outlined in separation and transaction agreements signed by P&G and Diamond. These steps included the following: (1) the creation by P&G of a wholly owned subsidiary containing Pringles' assets and liabilities; (2) the recapitalization of the wholly owned Pringles subsidiary; (3) the separation of the wholly owned subsidiary through a split-off exchange offer; and (4) a merger with a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond Foods. The separation agreement covered the first three steps, with the final step detailed in the transaction agreement. Following a rigorous portfolio review and an informal expression of interest in the Pringles brand by Diamond Foods (Diamond) in late 2009, Proctor & Gamble (P&G), the world's leading manufacturer of household products, believed that Pringles could be worth more to its shareholders if divested than if retained. Pringles is the iconic potato chip brand, with sales in 140 countries and operations in the United States, Europe, and Asia.

Prior to the merger, Diamond already had formidable antitakeover defenses in place as part of its charter documents, including a classified board of directors, a prohibition against stockholders' taking action by written consent (i.e., consent solicitation), and a requirement that stockholders give advance notice before raising matters at a stockholders' meeting. Following the merger, Diamond adopted a shareholder-rights plan. The plan entitled the holder of such rights to purchase 1/100 of a share of Diamond's Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock if a person or group acquires 15% or more of Diamond's outstanding common stock. Holders of this preferred stock (other than the person or group triggering their exercise) would be able to purchase Diamond common shares (flip-in poison pill) or those of any company into which Diamond is merged (flip-over poison pill) at a price of $60 per share. Such rights would expire in March 2015 unless extended by Diamond's board of directors.

Question: Speculate as to why P&G chose to split-off rather than spin-off Pringles as part its plan to merge Post with Ralcorp.Be specific as to why. ??

Step by Step Solution

There are 3 Steps involved in it

Step: 1

blur-text-image

Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions

See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success

Step: 2

blur-text-image

Step: 3

blur-text-image

Ace Your Homework with AI

Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance

Get Started

Recommended Textbook for

Financial Management Core Concepts

Authors: Raymond M Brooks

2nd edition

132671034, 978-0132671033

More Books

Students also viewed these Finance questions

Question

2. What is the meaning and definition of Banking?

Answered: 1 week ago

Question

3.What are the Importance / Role of Bank in Business?

Answered: 1 week ago

Question

Is times interest earned meaningful for utilities? Why or why not?

Answered: 1 week ago