Stay current on changes and developments in corporate law with a wide variety of resources and tools.
By Jacob Rund
Tribune Media Co.'s claims that “willful” breaches of its written merger agreement with Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. caused the $3.9 billion deal to collapse are virtually untested in court.
The alleged breaches happened because Sinclair didn’t exert “reasonable best efforts” to “avoid or eliminate” government roadblocks to completing the merger, Tribune claimed.
“As far as the case law is concerned, there’s very little precedent, and this is a very murky area,” Albert Choi, a University of Virginia Law School professor who specializes in contracts and mergers, told Bloomberg Law in an email.
Tribune called off the combination Aug. 9, the same day it filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court.
The Tribune-Sinclair contract contained the phrase “reasonable best efforts” 37 times, including in a clause outlining obligations to pursue station sales if needed. Sinclair’s unwillingness to accept the divestitures offered by the government that would have cleared the deal shows it willfully breached the terms of the contract, Tribune said.
Tribune is seeking $1 billion in damages for its botched sale to Sinclair.
Sinclair refused to follow through with TV station divestitures needed to satisfy regulators, despite agreeing to do so in the merger contract, according to the lawsuit. The Justice Department offered to clear the deal if Sinclair offloaded stations in 10 markets where its services overlapped with Tribune’s, but the Sinclair pushed back.
Potential media market overlap also triggered concerns at the Federal Communications Commission, whose chairman eventually sent the deal to an internal administrative law judge. Tribune claimed that could have delayed FCC approval for years.
Sinclair, in a Aug. 9 written statement, said Tribune’s lawsuit “is entirely without merit,” and that it “fully complied” with its contractual obligations.
The courts “haven’t said much” about the violations of best effort standards, said Afra Afsharipour, a University of California, Davis Law School professor who researches mergers and corporate law.
“Even if you look at the big treatises on the issue, they don’t say a huge amount,” she told Bloomberg Law.
That means the Tribune-Sinclair case “is going to be super facts-specific,” she said. “There’s actually very little in [the complaint] about the law” because there just isn’t a lot of it, she said.
When a case depends on a judge’s interpretation of the facts, it adds uncertainty. “It’s a little bit up in the air,” Afsharipour said. There’s no clarity about “exactly how they are going to hold [Sinclair] accountable for these kinds of actions.”
One of the most notable cases involving “best efforts” language that Delaware courts decided is The Williams Cos. Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity L.P. That case dealt with allegations that Energy Transfer didn’t exert “commercially reasonable efforts” to obtain a tax opinion necessary for it to buy Williams Companies.
The seller sued to make Energy Transfer stick with the deal, but both the Chancery Court and the state’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of the buyer. The state’s highest court said a suing party isn’t obligated to outline for a judge the steps a company needs to take to finalize a deal.
And in Hexion v. Huntsman Corp. , the Chancery Court said a violation of a “best efforts” clause, through a failure by one company to alert the management of the other to certain issues, could be enough to show breach of contract.
Phrases such as “reasonable efforts,” “commercially reasonable efforts,” and “reasonable best efforts” show up often in merger contracts, but lawyers and judges interpret them differently.
“Lawyers tend to think that you’re essentially obligating parties to a higher level of effort depending on the way the phrasing is constructed,” Afsharipour said. “And ‘reasonable best effort’ tends to be a higher standard among practitioners. But there’s no actual agreement in the case law that says that.”
“The courts seem to actually use the same analysis,” for those various phrases, she added.
Courts have shown that merging companies generally aren’t required to put themselves in a worse position to clear a deal, said Brian Quinn, a Boston College Law School professor who teaches transactional and corporate law.
“One thing that’s clear is the courts are not requiring, with ‘best efforts,’ buyers that commit to exerting those kind of efforts to lose money,” he told Bloomberg Law.
But Tribune isn’t claiming that Sinclair was being forced into a worse position than the merger agreement envisioned, Quinn added. “What Tribune is saying is, ‘Look, you committed to reasonable best efforts to close this transaction and to dispose of the list of stations that we agreed to. But you’re not doing that, and you have willfully breached the contract,’” he said.
Delaware’s Chancery Court is weighing the same question in another case involving a high-profile deal — Anthem Inc.'s failed $48 billion merger with Cigna Corp. The combination was challenged by U.S. antitrust authorities and blocked by a district court judge in February 2017.
That suit and the Tribune complaint are among the few in recent history to deal with claims that a megadeal was upended by one party’s failure to work hard enough to get it to the finish line.
“There have been similar [cases] in the past, so it isn’t totally new, but I can’t remember one that’s as prominent and visible as Cigna’s,” said Donald Baker, co-founder of law firm Baker & Miller PLLC and a former top official in the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.
This type of claim “certainly isn’t routine,” he told Bloomberg Law.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jacob Rund in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Fawn Johnson at email@example.com
Copyright © 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)