Advisory Board

  • Cai Hongbin
  • Peking University Guanghua School of Management
  • Peter Clarke
  • Barry Diller
  • IAC/InterActiveCorp
  • Fu Chengyu
  • China National Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec Group)
  • Richard J. Gnodde
  • Goldman Sachs International
  • Lodewijk Hijmans van den Bergh
  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek N.V.
  • Jiang Jianqing
  • Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Ltd. (ICBC)
  • Handel Lee
  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • Richard Li
  • PCCW Limited
  • Pacific Century Group
  • Liew Mun Leong
  • Changi Airport Group
  • Martin Lipton
  • New York University
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Liu Mingkang
  • China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC)
  • Dinesh C. Paliwal
  • Harman International Industries
  • Leon Pasternak
  • BCC Partners
  • Tim Payne
  • Brunswick Group
  • Joseph R. Perella
  • Perella Weinberg Partners
  • Baron David de Rothschild
  • N M Rothschild & Sons Limited
  • Dilhan Pillay Sandrasegara
  • Temasek International Pte. Ltd.
  • Shao Ning
  • State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council of China (SASAC)
  • John W. Snow
  • Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
  • Former U.S. Secretary of Treasury
  • Bharat Vasani
  • Tata Group
  • Wang Junfeng
  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • Wang Kejin
  • China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC)
  • Wei Jiafu
  • Kazakhstan Potash Corporation Limited
  • Yang Chao
  • China Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
  • Zhu Min
  • International Monetary Fund

Legal Roundtable

  • Dimitry Afanasiev
  • Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev and Partners (Moscow)
  • William T. Allen
  • NYU Stern School of Business
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Johan Aalto
  • Hannes Snellman Attorneys Ltd (Finland)
  • Nigel P. G. Boardman
  • Slaughter and May (London)
  • Willem J.L. Calkoen
  • NautaDutilh N.V. (Rotterdam)
  • Peter Callens
  • Loyens & Loeff (Brussels)
  • Bertrand Cardi
  • Darrois Villey Maillot & Brochier (Paris)
  • Santiago Carregal
  • Marval, O’Farrell & Mairal (Buenos Aires)
  • Martín Carrizosa
  • Philippi Prietocarrizosa & Uría (Bogotá)
  • Carlos G. Cordero G.
  • Aleman, Cordero, Galindo & Lee (Panama)
  • Ewen Crouch
  • Allens (Sydney)
  • Adam O. Emmerich
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Rachel Eng
  • WongPartnership (Singapore)
  • Sergio Erede
  • BonelliErede (Milan)
  • Kenichi Fujinawa
  • Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (Tokyo)
  • Manuel Galicia Romero
  • Galicia Abogados (Mexico City)
  • Danny Gilbert
  • Gilbert + Tobin (Sydney)
  • Vladimíra Glatzová
  • Glatzová & Co. (Prague)
  • Juan Miguel Goenechea
  • Uría Menéndez (Madrid)
  • Andrey A. Goltsblat
  • Goltsblat BLP (Moscow)
  • Juan Francisco Gutiérrez I.
  • Philippi Prietocarrizosa & Uría (Santiago)
  • Fang He
  • Jun He Law Offices (Beijing)
  • Christian Herbst
  • Schönherr (Vienna)
  • Lodewijk Hijmans van den Bergh
  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek N.V. (Amsterdam)
  • Hein Hooghoudt
  • NautaDutilh N.V. (Amsterdam)
  • Sameer Huda
  • Hadef & Partners (Dubai)
  • Masakazu Iwakura
  • TMI Associates (Tokyo)
  • Christof Jäckle
  • Hengeler Mueller (Frankfurt)
  • Michael Mervyn Katz
  • Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs (Johannesburg)
  • Handel Lee
  • King & Wood Mallesons (Beijing)
  • Martin Lipton
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Alain Maillot
  • Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier (Paris)
  • Antônio Corrêa Meyer
  • Machado, Meyer, Sendacz e Opice (São Paulo)
  • Sergio Michelsen Jaramillo
  • Brigard & Urrutia (Bogotá)
  • Zia Mody
  • AZB & Partners (Mumbai)
  • Christopher Murray
  • Osler (Toronto)
  • Francisco Antunes Maciel Müssnich
  • Barbosa, Müssnich & Aragão (Rio de Janeiro)
  • I. Berl Nadler
  • Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP (Toronto)
  • Umberto Nicodano
  • BonelliErede (Milan)
  • Brian O'Gorman
  • Arthur Cox (Dublin)
  • Robin Panovka
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Sang-Yeol Park
  • Park & Partners (Seoul)
  • José Antonio Payet Puccio
  • Payet Rey Cauvi (Lima)
  • Kees Peijster
  • COFRA Holding AG (Zug)
  • Juan Martín Perrotto
  • Uría & Menéndez (Madrid/Beijing)
  • Philip Podzebenko
  • Herbert Smith Freehills (Sydney)
  • Geert Potjewijd
  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek (Amsterdam/Beijing)
  • Qi Adam Li
  • Jun He Law Offices (Shanghai)
  • Biörn Riese
  • Jurie Advokat AB (Sweden)
  • Mark Rigotti
  • Herbert Smith Freehills (Sydney)
  • Rafael Robles Miaja
  • Robles Miaja (Mexico City)
  • Alberto Saravalle
  • BonelliErede (Milan)
  • Maximilian Schiessl
  • Hengeler Mueller (Düsseldorf)
  • Cyril S. Shroff
  • Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas (Mumbai)
  • Shardul S. Shroff
  • Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.(New Delhi)
  • Klaus Søgaard
  • Gorrissen Federspiel (Denmark)
  • Ezekiel Solomon
  • Allens (Sydney)
  • Emanuel P. Strehle
  • Hengeler Mueller (Munich)
  • David E. Tadmor
  • Tadmor & Co. (Tel Aviv)
  • Kevin J. Thomson
  • Barrick Gold Corporation (Toronto)
  • Yu Wakae
  • Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (Tokyo)
  • Wang Junfeng
  • King & Wood Mallesons (Beijing)
  • Tomasz Wardynski
  • Wardynski & Partners (Warsaw)
  • Xiao Wei
  • Jun He Law Offices (Beijing)
  • Xu Ping
  • King & Wood Mallesons (Beijing)
  • Shuji Yanase
  • OK Corporation (Tokyo)
  • Alvin Yeo
  • WongPartnership LLP (Singapore)

Founding Directors

  • William T. Allen
  • NYU Stern School of Business
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Nigel P.G. Boardman
  • Slaughter and May
  • Cai Hongbin
  • Peking University Guanghua School of Management
  • Adam O. Emmerich
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Robin Panovka
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Peter Williamson
  • Cambridge Judge Business School
  • Franny Yao
  • Ernst & Young

M&A (General)

DUTCH UPDATE – Dutch cooling-off period in face of shareholder activism or hostile take-over

Editor’s Note: Leo Groothuis advises clients on public M&A and on a wide variety of other domestic and cross-border transactions, as well as take-over defenses and shareholder activism. Paul van der Bijl focuses on IPOs, follow-on offerings, public M&A, anti-takeover defenses, corporate governance and complex cross-border transactions

Dutch cooling-off period in face of shareholder activism or hostile take-over

On December 7, 2018, the Dutch government published draft legislation aimed at promoting a careful decision-making process in case of shareholder activism or a hostile takeover. If enacted in its current form, the proposal would introduce a statutory cooling-off period of up to 250 days during which the shareholders meeting would not be able to dismiss, suspend or appoint board members of a listed Dutch company under attack.

Scope

The legislation would apply to companies organized under Dutch law whose shares (or depository receipts for shares) are listed on a regulated market or multilateral trading facility operating in the European Economic Area, or on any similar stock exchange operating outside the European Economic Area, including Nasdaq and NYSE.

Conditions to invoke the cooling-off period

The board of a listed Dutch company under attack may invoke a cooling-off period of up to 250 days in case:

  1. shareholders, using either their shareholder proposal right or their right to request an extraordinary shareholders meeting[1], propose an agenda item for the shareholders meeting relating to the dismissal, suspension or appointment of a board member (or an amendment of any provision in the company’s articles dealing with those matters); or
  2. a public offer for the company is made or announced without the company’s support, provided, in each case, that such proposal or offer materially conflicts with the interests of the company and its business, as determined by the board.

The cooling-off period ends at occurrence of the earliest of the following events:

  1. the expiration of 250 days following the date of the relevant shareholder proposal or hostile offer;
  2. the hostile offer being declared unconditional (after the expiration of the initial acceptance period); or
  3. the board (voluntarily) terminating the cooling-off period.

Effects of the cooling-off period

During the cooling-off period, the shareholders meeting cannot validly resolve on the dismissal, suspension or appointment of a board member (or an amendment of any provision in the company’s articles dealing with those matters), unless proposed by the board itself.

Judiciary review

Shareholders representing 3% or more of the issued share capital may request the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal for early termination of the cooling-off period. The Enterprise Chamber must deny the request if the board, in view of the circumstances at the time the cooling-off period was invoked, could reasonably have come to the conclusion that the relevant shareholder proposal or hostile offer constituted a material conflict with the interests of the company and its business.

Consultation and transparency

During the cooling-off period, the board must gather all relevant information necessary for a careful decision-making process. In this context, the board must also consult with relevant stakeholders, including shareholders representing 3% or more of the issued share capital. Formal statements expressed by these stakeholders during such consultations must be shared with other stakeholders who are consulted by the board. Ultimately at the end of the cooling-off period, the board must publish a report in respect of its policy and conduct of affairs during the cooling-off period. This report should be tabled for discussion at the next shareholders meeting.

Combination with protective measures and/or existing response period

In an explanatory note, the Government indicates that it is opposed to accumulation of the cooling-off period with protective measures and/or the existing response period under the Dutch Corporate Governance Code. However, the draft legislation does not provide any specific restrictions in this respect. The rules in respect of potential combination or successive application of the various measures available to companies organized under Dutch law should be developed in market practice and case law.

There are a number of interesting differences between the existing response period under the Dutch Corporate Governance Code and the new proposed statutory cooling-off period, which are summarized in the table below.

Existing response period

Proposed cooling-off period

Follows from the Dutch Corporate Governance Code and is considered part of the general principles of reasonableness and fairness which should be observed by all stakeholders (including shareholders).

Mandatory Dutch law (once enacted), binding upon all shareholders.
Up to 180 days. Up to 250 days.
Can be invoked if shareholders propose an agenda item which could result in a change to the company’s strategy, including (but not necessarily limited to) the dismissal of board members. Can be invoked if shareholders propose the dismissal, suspension or appointment of a board member (or an amendment of any provision in the company’s articles dealing with those matters), or in case of a hostile offer
Allows the board to postpone a shareholder proposal during the response period (both as a discussion and as a voting item)

Allows the discussion of a shareholder proposal during the cooling-off period, but prevents a valid resolution in respect of the dismissal, suspension or appointment of a board member (or an amendment of any provision in the company’s articles dealing with those matters).

 

A common feature of the existing response period and the proposed cooling-off period is the postponement of a shareholder vote during a standstill period invoked by the board. This distinguishes them from more traditional protective measures under Dutch law, such as the issuance of preference shares or priority shares, which (i) are typically activated by an independent foundation and (ii) are focussed on the outcome of the vote, rather than the timing thereof.

Compliance with European rules

Based on advice from the Dutch Council of State (which has also been published), the Government is of the opinion that the proposed legislation does not violate European rules. Relevant rules include in this respect:

  1. the European Takeover Directive: the proposed legislation does not interfere with the course of any public take-over itself; merely with the adoption of certain shareholders resolutions during the offer period;
  2. the European Shareholders Rights Directive: the Government makes a distinction between the convocation of shareholders meetings and the inclusion of items on the agenda of the meeting, and the valid adoption of shareholders resolutions in respect of such items (only the former, and not the latter being subject to the European Directive);
  3. the European freedoms: the Government acknowledges that the proposed legislation could have a restrictive effect on European freedoms, but is of the opinion that such restrictive effect is justified by the public interest of a careful decision making process and proportionality.

Next steps

The general public is invited to submit comments on the draft legislative proposal before February 7, 2019. Following review of the comments and potential revision of the proposal, the legislative proposal may be submitted to Dutch parliament.

[1] The statutory thresholds for shareholders to make use of those rights are 3% and 10%, respectively, unless the company’s articles provide for a lower threshold.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and have not been endorsed, confirmed, or approved by XBMA or any of the editors of XBMA Forum, nor by XBMA’s founders, members, contributors, academic partners, advisory board members, or others. No inference to the contrary should be drawn.

Spotlight on Boards

Editor’s Note: This article was authored by Martin Lipton of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

December 3, 2018

Spotlight on Boards

The ever-evolving challenges facing corporate boards prompt an updated snapshot of what is expected from the board of directors of a major public company—not just the legal rules, but also the aspirational “best practices” that have come to have equivalent influence on board and company behavior. Today, boards are expected to:

  • Oversee corporate strategy and the communication of that strategy to investors, keeping in mind that investors want to be assured not just about current risks and problems, but threats to long-term strategy from global, political, social, and technological developments;
  • Determine the board’s response to proposed legislation like Senator Elizabeth Warren’s bill, Accountable Capitalism Act, which would federalize all companies with annual revenues of $1,000,000,000, preempt state corporation law and mandate board fiduciary duty to all stakeholders, not just shareholders, and require not less than 40% of the directors be elected by employees;
  • Be aware that ESG and sustainability have become major, mainstream governance topics that encompass a wide range of issues, such as climate change and other environmental risks, systemic financial stability, labor standards, employee training, and consumer and product safety;
  • Recognize the current focus of investors on “purpose” and an expanded notion of stakeholder interests that includes employees, customers, communities, and the economy and society as a whole and work with management to develop metrics to enable the company to demonstrate their long-term value to shareholders, society and the economy;
  • Set the “tone at the top” to create a corporate culture that gives priority to ethical standards, professionalism, integrity and compliance in setting and implementing both operating and strategic goals;
  • Choose the CEO, monitor the CEO’s and management’s performance and develop and keep current a succession plan;
  • Have a lead independent director or a non-executive chair of the board who can facilitate the functioning of the board and assist management in engaging with investors;
  • Together with the lead independent director or the non-executive chair, determine the agendas for board and committee meetings and work with management to ensure that appropriate information and sufficient time are available for full consideration of all matters;
  • Determine the appropriate level of executive compensation and incentive structures, with awareness of the potential impact of compensation structures on business priorities and risk-taking, as well as investor and proxy advisor views on compensation;
  • Develop a working partnership with the CEO and management and serve as a resource for management in charting the appropriate course for the corporation;
  • Oversee and understand the corporation’s risk management and compliance efforts and how risk is taken into account in the corporation’s business decision-making; respond to red flags if and when they arise;
  • Monitor and participate, as appropriate, in shareholder engagement efforts, evaluate corporate governance proposals, and work with management to anticipate possible takeover attempts and activist attacks in order to be able to address them more effectively, if they should occur;
  • Meet at least annually with the team of company executives and outside advisors that will advise the company in the event of a takeover proposal or an activist attack;
  • Be open to management inviting an activist to meet with the board to present the activist’s opinion of the strategy and management of the company;
  • Evaluate the board’s and committees’ performance on a regular basis and consider the optimal board and committee composition and structure, including board refreshment, expertise and skill sets, independence and diversity, as well as the best way to communicate with investors regarding these issues;
  • Review corporate governance guidelines and committee charters and tailor them to promote effective board and committee functioning;
  • Be prepared to deal with crises; and
  • Be prepared to take an active role in matters where the CEO may have a real or perceived conflict, including takeovers and attacks by activist hedge funds focused on the CEO.

To meet these expectations, major public companies should seek to:

  • Have a sufficient number of directors to staff the requisite standing and special committees and to meet investor expectations for experience, expertise, diversity, and periodic refreshment;
  • Compensate directors commensurate with the time and effort that they are required to devote and the responsibility that they assume;
  • Have directors who have knowledge of, and experience with, the company’s businesses, even if this results in the board having more than one director who is not “independent”;
  • Have directors who are able to devote sufficient time to preparing for and attending board and committee meetings and engaging with investors;
  • Provide the directors with the data that is critical to making sound decisions on strategy, compensation and capital allocation;
  • Provide the directors with regular tutorials by internal and external experts as part of expanded director education and to assure that in complicated, multi-industry and new-technology companies the directors have the information and expertise they need to evaluate strategy; and
  • Maintain a truly collegial relationship among and between the company’s senior executives and the members of the board that facilitates frank and vigorous discussion and enhances the board’s role as strategic partner, evaluator, and monitor.

Martin Lipton

 

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and have not been endorsed, confirmed, or approved by XBMA or any of the editors of XBMA Forum, nor by XBMA’s founders, members, contributors, academic partners, advisory board members, or others. No inference to the contrary should be drawn.

 

DUTCH UPDATE – Shareholders’ Rights Directive implementation bill now before Parliament

Editor’s Note: Leo Groothuis advises clients on public M&A and on a wide variety of other domestic and cross-border transactions, as well as take-over defenses and shareholder activism. Geert Raaijmakers specializes in corporate governance, corporate structuring and joint ventures and on pension fund governance.  Maarten Buma and Suzanne Rutten specialize in corporate law. 

Shareholders’ Rights Directive implementation bill now before Parliament

On 16 October 2018, the bill for the implementation in Dutch law of the revised Shareholders’ Rights Directive (EU 2017/828) was submitted to the lower house of the Dutch parliament (Tweede Kamer). In this newsletter, we will describe the changes in the bill compared to the earlier consultation version published on 27 February 2018, which was the subject of our newsletter dated 9 March 2018.

RENUMERATION POLICY

The consultation version of the bill contained a new provision on the remuneration policy of listed companies. This gave rise to confusion, because the Dutch Civil Code (“DCC”) already contains a provision on the subject. Under the bill as submitted to Parliament, it has now been clarified that listed companies will be subject only to the new provision, which will become section 2:135a(5) DCC. This sets out the information that must be given in the company’s remuneration policy, some of which is already required. New items of information that will be required include:

  • an explanation of the way in which the policy contributes to the company’s business strategy, long-term interests and sustainability;
  • an explanation of the decision-making process followed for the policy’s determination, review and implementation; and
  • in the event that the policy is revised, a description and explanation of how it takes into account the votes and views of shareholders on the policy and remuneration reports since the most recent vote on the policy by the general meeting of shareholders.

In the case of the remuneration report it has likewise been clarified that listed companies will be subject only to the new section 2:135b DCC, which sets out a number of new requirements in addition to existing ones. It should be noted, however, that pursuant to section 2:135b the current requirements in sections 2:383c-e DCC will continue to apply. One of the new items of information that will be required is an explanation of how the total remuneration complies with the remuneration policy and how it contributes to the company’s long-term performance. All information must be given in respect of each individual management board member.

TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PARTIES

The bill introduces the term “material transactions” (unlike the consultation version, which referred to “significant transactions”) and sets out a definition in which price sensitivity is taken as the point of departure. A transaction will be material if it meets both of the following two criteria:

  1. the information about the transaction constitutes inside information under the Market Abuse Regulation (Regulation (EU) 596/2014); and
  2. the transaction is concluded between the company and a related party (as defined under the International Accounting Standards). Related parties in any event include:
    • one or more shareholders who individually or collectively represent at least 10% of the company’s issued share capital (“stichting administratiekantoor” foundations and foundations holding preference shares can fall within this category);
    • members of the company’s management board; and
    • members of the company’s supervisory board.

A provision has been added prohibiting a management board member or supervisory board member from participating in the decision making on a related party transaction in which that board member is involved. Lastly, the period over which non-material transactions with the same related party must be aggregated, potentially resulting in an obligation to disclose those transactions, has been changed from 12 months to “the same financial year”.

TRANSPARENCY REGARDING LONG-TERM SHAREHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

The definition of “asset manager” has been amended to clarify that it refers to those providing asset management services to institutional investors. The term “proxy advisor” has been replaced with “voting advisor” (stemadviseur), as this is more in line with the terminology commonly used in the Netherlands, including in the Dutch Corporate Governance Code. In addition the obligation on the part of institutional investors and asset managers to disclose and explain “the most significant votes”, and the possibility of excluding “insignificant votes” in this regard, have been elaborated upon.

The proposed reporting requirements overlap with those imposed under other EU directives and regulations, such as the AIFM, UCITS and MiFID II directives. The explanatory memorandum to the bill clarifies that it will be sufficient if asset managers include the relevant information in their other reports or include references to such information (for example using hyperlinks), provided it is made clear to the relevant institutional investors where the information can be found.

NEXT STEPS

The deadline for the implementation of the Directive in national law is 10 June 2019. It is possible that the bill will be amended as it makes its way through Parliament. We will of course keep you updated on any significant amendments and on the entry into effect of the new legislation. It is also worth mentioning that both the government and the Corporate Governance Code Monitoring Committee are of the opinion that, in connection with the implementation of the Directive, the section of the Code relating to shareholders should be re-examined; we will likewise inform you of any developments on that front.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and have not been endorsed, confirmed, or approved by XBMA or any of the editors of XBMA Forum, nor by XBMA’s founders, members, contributors, academic partners, advisory board members, or others. No inference to the contrary should be drawn.

GLOBAL STATISTICAL UPDATE – XBMA Quarterly Review for Third Quarter 2018

Editors’ Note: The XBMA Review is published on a quarterly basis in order to facilitate a deeper understanding of trends and developments. In order to facilitate meaningful comparisons, the XBMA Review has utilized generally consistent metrics and sources of data since inception. We welcome feedback and suggestions for improving the XBMA Review or for interpreting the data.
Executive Summary/Highlights:
  • Global M&A in 2018 is at record levels, and at the current pace could approach 2007’s all-time high of almost US$5 trillion.
  • Cross-border dealmaking has surged, with the volume of cross-border M&A over the first three quarters of 2018 already far surpassing that of all of 2017.
  • Likewise, the market for mega-deals remains strong, and each of the three largest deals announced in 2018 is larger than any deal announced in 2017.
  • European M&A volume has already exceeded US$940 billion through the first three quarters of 2018, well in excess of any full year since the beginning of 2009, including 2015 when European M&A reached a recent peak of US$914 billion.
  • Dealmaking has been helped by the strong global economy, robust corporate earnings, the continued availability of relatively inexpensive debt capital, the search for growth through acquisition of new products or markets and the need to adapt to technological disruption. A significant wild card that may dampen or disrupt the trend is the risk of a serious trade war or other geo-political instability.

Click here to see the Review.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and have not been endorsed, confirmed, or approved by XBMA, nor by XBMA’s founders, members, contributors, academic partners, advisory board members, or others. No inference to the contrary should be drawn.

GLOBAL STATISTICAL UPDATE – XBMA Quarterly Review for Second Quarter 2018

Editors’ Note: The XBMA Review is published on a quarterly basis in order to facilitate a deeper understanding of trends and developments. In order to facilitate meaningful comparisons, the XBMA Review has utilized generally consistent metrics and sources of data since inception. We welcome feedback and suggestions for improving the XBMA Review or for interpreting the data.

Executive Summary/Highlights:

  • The global M&A environment continued to show historic strength in 2018, as global deal volume reached nearly US$1.3 trillion for the second quarter and US$2.5 trillion for the first half of the year.
  • Global M&A activity has enjoyed a steady climb over the last several quarters and has increased sharply since Q3 2017, with global deal volume exceeding US$1.0 trillion in each of the ensuing three quarters. Q1 and Q2 2018 were two of the most active quarters for global M&A ever.
  • Cross-border transactions have continued to comprise a significant portion of global deal volume, accounting for 41% of overall M&A in Q2 2018. Cross-border M&A activity has already exceeded US$1.0 trillion for the first half of 2018.
  • In emerging markets, inbound M&A volume into the BRIC countries reached US$63 billion in aggregate in Q2 2018. Most notably, the volume of inbound M&A activity increased significantly in China and India during Q2 2018 as compared to prior quarters.
  • Q2 was highlighted by a number of headline-grabbing mega-deals across sectors, including T‑Mobile’s combination with Sprint. The volume of transactions with values of more than US$500 million is on pace to increase approximately 65% in 2018 compared to 2017.
  • The blistering pace of global M&A activity in 2018 continues to be driven by the impact and the anticipation of disruptive technologies across industries, and in the media and entertainment, telecommunications and healthcare sectors, in particular.

Click here to see the Review.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and have not been endorsed, confirmed, or approved by XBMA, nor by XBMA’s founders, members, contributors, academic partners, advisory board members, or others. No inference to the contrary should be drawn.

Subscribe to Newsletter

Enter your Email

Preview Newsletter