Office Overview

Understanding the Unocal Criteria in M&A: A Comprehensive Guide

Demystifying the Unocal Criteria: Key Factors in M&A Decision-Making

The Unocal criteria represent a pivotal framework utilized in the realm of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) to assess the legitimacy and fairness of defensive measures adopted by target companies. Here’s a concise overview of the Unocal criteria:

1. Reasonableness of Defensive Measures: The Unocal criteria evaluate whether defensive measures undertaken by a target company are reasonable in response to perceived threats to shareholder interests, such as hostile takeover attempts.
2. Proportionality of Defensive Actions: This criterion scrutinizes whether the defensive actions taken by a target company are proportional to the threat faced, ensuring that they do not unduly impede the shareholders’ ability to make informed decisions.
3. Substantive Coherence with Shareholder Interests: The Unocal criteria also assess whether defensive measures align with the long-term interests of the shareholders, prioritizing their welfare over short-term gains or management entrenchment.

Reasonableness of Defensive Measures

The Unocal criteria emphasize the importance of assessing the reasonableness of defensive measures implemented by target companies. In the landmark case Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. (1985), the Delaware Supreme Court held that defensive actions must be objectively reasonable in response to an actual or perceived threat to shareholder interests. For instance, if a target company adopts a poison pill strategy to thwart a hostile takeover bid deemed detrimental to shareholder value, the Unocal criteria would evaluate whether such a defensive measure is justifiable given the circumstances. In essence, the reasonableness standard requires target boards to demonstrate a rational basis for their defensive actions, considering factors such as the seriousness of the threat, the adequacy of alternative courses of action, and the potential impact on shareholder value.

Proportionality of Defensive Actions

Another crucial aspect of the Unocal criteria is the requirement for defensive actions to be proportional to the threat posed by a hostile acquirer. This principle aims to strike a balance between protecting shareholder interests and preserving the ability of shareholders to make independent decisions regarding the company’s future. In the case of Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. (1986), the Delaware Supreme Court elaborated on the concept of proportionality, emphasizing that defensive measures should not be unduly coercive or preclusive, thereby denying shareholders the opportunity to consider competing offers or alternatives. For instance, if a target company adopts a staggered board structure to deter hostile takeovers, the Unocal criteria would evaluate whether such a measure is proportionate to the level of threat posed by potential acquirers. Essentially, the proportionality requirement ensures that defensive actions do not unnecessarily restrict shareholders’ ability to exercise their rights or maximize value.

Substantive Coherence with Shareholder Interests

The Unocal criteria also emphasize the importance of defensive measures being substantively coherent with the long-term interests of shareholders. This criterion seeks to prevent target boards from pursuing defensive strategies that prioritize management’s self-interest or entrenchment over shareholder welfare. In the case of Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp. (1995), the Delaware Supreme Court reiterated the principle that defensive actions must be motivated by a genuine belief in their value to shareholders and not merely as a means of perpetuating existing management’s control. For example, if a target company adopts a white squire defense, wherein it sells a significant stake to a friendly investor to dilute the hostile acquirer’s interest, the Unocal criteria would scrutinize whether such a transaction aligns with the shareholders’ best interests and enhances long-term value. Ultimately, the substantive coherence requirement ensures that defensive measures serve the ultimate goal of maximizing shareholder value and are not driven by management’s desire to preserve its position at the expense of shareholders.

The Unocal criteria provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating the legitimacy and fairness of defensive measures adopted by target companies in response to hostile takeover attempts. By assessing the reasonableness, proportionality, and substantive coherence of defensive actions, the Unocal criteria help safeguard shareholder interests and promote transparency and accountability in the M&A process. Understanding and applying these criteria are essential for boards of directors, management teams, and investors navigating the complex landscape of mergers and acquisitions.