|
|
벨기에
Cleary Gottlieb은 이미 반세기 전에 벨기에 업무에 투자하기 시작해서 다른 동급 법률회사 및 국제적 경쟁자들보다 앞서갔습니다. 고객들의 비즈니스 및 법률적 필요에 맞춰 사무소를 키워온 결과, 저희 브뤼셀 사무소에는 현재 60명 이상의 변호사들이 근무하고 있고, EU 공정거래법 업무 뿐 아니라 기업, 금융, 상법, 근로법, 조세법, 언론법 및 행정법 등 벨기에 회사법 업무의 모든 측면에서 깊은 전문지식을 쌓아왔습니다. 저희는 벨기에 법률에 대한 빈틈없는 지식 뿐 아니라 다국적 거래에서 벨기에법을 적용하는 데에 실질적 경험을 바탕으로 한 자문을 제공합니다.
Read More »
Jul 26, 2006
Cleary Gottlieb is advising long-time client Mittal Steel in its unsolicited but ultimately recommended bid for Arcelor, which was first announced on January 27, 2006 and culminated in the announcement on July 26 that approximately 92% of Arcelor’s shares had been tendered into Mittal Steel’s €26.6 billion offer. Settlement of the offer will occur on August 1, with a subsequent offering period to close in mid-August and settle in early September. The combined entity, ArcelorMittal, will be, at 100 million tons of steel shipped per year, the world’s largest steel company, more than three times larger than its closest rival.
This transaction attracted a great deal of media attention for reasons including the initially hostile nature and the prolonged (five month) and hard-fought takeover battle; the nature and histories of the companies involved; political considerations (Arcelor results from the combination of three European steel companies and operates in a symbolic and politically-charged sector, and several governments initially expressed opposition to or reservations about the bid); and the role of shareholder activism and importance of corporate governance considerations in the takeover battle.
The transaction was extremely complex from the regulatory perspective. The terms and documentation of the offer required the approval of the Belgian, French, Luxembourg and Spanish securities regulators since Arcelor is listed on markets in all four jurisdictions. The applicable regulatory framework for the bid therefore had to be constructed sui generis since the European Takeover Directive had not yet been implemented in the relevant jurisdictions. The share offering prospectus required the approval of the Dutch securities regulator as Mittal Steel is a Dutch company, and the offering was registered with the SEC (among other reasons because Mittal Steel’s shares are NYSE-listed). Antitrust filings were necessary in the EU, U.S., Canada and various other jurisdictions around the world. The transaction was further complicated by Mittal Steel’s agreed on-sale for approximately C$5.6 billion to Thyssen-Krupp of Dofasco, a Canadian steel company acquired by Arcelor after a prolonged take-over battle that ended just before the launch of Mittal Steel’s bid and the possibility that Mittal Steel might have to launch an offer to buy out the minority interests in Arcelor’s listed Brazilian subsidiaries for over €3 billion.
In addition to clearing the regulatory hurdles, Mittal Steel had to overcome a wide array of defensive measures employed by Arcelor. These included: a concentrated effort to obstruct or delay the necessary regulatory approvals; the placing of Dofasco into a stichting (a Dutch foundation), the unanimous approval of whose board is required for any sale of the company; and the signing an agreement with the controlling shareholder of Severstal, a Russian steel company, providing for the acquisition of a controlling interest in Arcelor without a premium or a subsequent mandatory bid, subject only to antitrust approval and the veto of 50% of the total outstanding share capital (where historical EGM attendance averaged around 35%).
Mittal Steel overcame each of these hurdles. The regulatory approvals were obtained after months of protracted effort and negotiation. The Dofasco stichting proved non-dissuasive. A shareholder revolt led to the withdrawal of the proposed share buyback and undid the Severstal stitch-up, which was ultimately rejected by 60% of total outstanding shares at an EGM. Mittal Steel continued to seek negotiations with Arcelor’s Board throughout the process with the goal of obtaining a recommendation, which it did on June 25 after having seen off the various defensive measures, revising its offer on two separate occasions and signing a Memorandum of Understanding relating, among other things, to revised offer terms and corporate governance matters.
Cleary Gottlieb is acting as sole transaction counsel to Mittal Steel and handling all aspects of the transaction, working with local counsel in various jurisdictions (principally Luxembourg, Spain and the Netherlands).
Nov 01, 2007
Cleary Gottlieb represented the underwriters UBS, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Fortis Bank and KBC Securities in Nyrstar’s €2 billion initial public offering and Euronext Brussels listing. The offering included a global institutional placement, including a 144A tranche, and a Belgian retail offering. Nyrstar’s IPO is one of Europe’s largest this year, and is Belgium’s largest since Belgacom’s IPO, which Cleary Gottlieb also handled. The deal priced on October 29 and closed November 1.
The deal was structured using an innovative "extension clause" that is new in local securities law and a customary overallotment facility. Both were exercised in full, resulting in a complete exit by the two selling shareholders.
Several banks involved said the deal was one of the most complex ECM deals they had seen. Nyrstar is a newly-formed entity created from the carve-out and merger of the zinc groups of Umicore, a Belgian Euronext-listed industrial company, and Zinifex, an Australian mining and smelting business. The deal presented several major challenges, including issues related to the historical financial information for both carve-out groups.
Nyrstar employs over 4,000 people across four continents and in 2006 produced more than one million tons of zinc.
Oct 14, 2005
Cleary Gottlieb represented Telenet Group Holding NV in a €985.8 million IPO of approximately 13 million new ordinary shares and approximately 34 million existing ordinary shares. The offering consisted of a public offering in Belgium and a Rule 144A/Reg S placement to institutional investors.
The joint bookrunners, who were appointed following a competitive process, have an option to purchase an additional 6.6 million shares from certain existing shareholders to cover over-allotments. Most of the Telenet's existing shareholders sold the majority of their collective stake in the IPO. However, affiliates of U.S.-based telecommunications company Liberty Global, Inc., which jointly owned a 21% stake in Telenet, participated in the offering and exercised certain rights of first offer so as to maintain their stake.
Telenet is Belgium's largest broadband provider offering telephony, Internet and cable TV services, including a recently launched digital interactive television service. The proceeds from the primary offering will be used to prepay a portion of the high yield senior and senior discount notes that were issued in December 2003 and for which Cleary had acted as issuer's counsel.
Belgian Law Firm of the Year Chambers Europe (2008)
Corporate Law Firm of the Year Belgian Legal Awards (2007)
#1 in Benelux M&A (announced and completed, value) Thomson Financial (2008, U.S.-based law firms)
“A sophisticated firm with a rich history of international work, Cleary Gottlieb’s Brussels team offers expertise on a range of trade matters.” Chambers Global (2008)
“‘The Rolls-Royce of corporate firms in Belgium.’” Chambers Global (2008)
“Cleary Gottlieb retains pole position for competition and antitrust in Brussels. Clients declare it ‘the cream of the crop; it commands an excellent cadre of partners.’” Chambers Global, Chambers Europe (2007)
“Lawyers from the [Brussels] corporate practice apply their expertise to large transactions containing strong public law elements: ‘If clients have a really complex matter, they’ll send it Cleary’s way,’ sources report.” Chambers Europe (2007)
“Sources said that [Cleary Gottlieb] really ‘understands the way public law works in Belgium.’” Chambers Europe (2008)
“Through taking on only high-level cases, the [Belgium office] has carved out a reputation as a top-end practice. This selectivity is married with high-quality work, which one client names as ‘simply phenomenal; the execution is flawless.’” Chambers Global, Chambers Europe (2007)
|
|
|