5 ms·
LinkedIn Schedule 14A: Background of the Merger
- FT_intern 10y agoParty A = Salesforce? Other parties = Google, Oracle, Facebook?
- jonathankoren 10y agoSalesforce was absolutely in the mix. This also motivates Salesforce's Quip acquisition. Why do you think anyone would pay for a super crappy google doc clone who's only selling point is "We're not Google, and you are afraid of Google."
- blahi 10y agoThey are afraid of Microsoft, not Google.
- jonathankoren 10y agoExcuse me. Are you from the past?
- blahi 10y agoNo, from the future, actually.
- 0xmohit 10y agoOn March 15, 2016, Mr. Weiner called Mr. Nadella to inquire as to whether Microsoft was interested in discussing further a potential acquisition of LinkedIn, and explained that, although LinkedIn was not for sale, others had expressed interest in an acquisition. Amusing, indeed. Maybe this is how M&A happen.
- jonathankoren 10y agoOf course it is. It's clear they started shopping the company immediately after the collapse. Also, you never say "Hey, you want to buy us?", because that reeks of desperation and scares off all potential buyers. Out of curiosity, how did you think business deals happen?
- marcusgarvey 10y agoWhich collapse do you mean?
- jonathankoren 10y agoThe stock price collapse.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 0xmohit 10y agoOut of curiosity, how did you think business deals happen? I didn't imagine something like: "P, Q, R, S have expressed interest in buying us. We thought that might as well check with you with you're interested. We are not for sale, by the way."
- mbesto 10y agoI work in M&A. Yes this is how M&A happens.
- dibstern 10y agoDude it's his duty as a representative of shareholders. Shareholders deserve to have all offers for the company heard, and all possible acquirers notified so that the shareholders get the best possible offer. Boards focus on representing shareholders. CEOs do too, mostly, but I'd argue that focusing on providing value to customers, which will in turn better provide value for shareholders, should be the main focus, because big companies too often lose sight of what the hell it is they're doing that is actually of value.
- stygiansonic 10y agoI believe this was previously reported on back in July, when this regulatory filing was made. Recode had some information about who the parties were: [0] "The SEC filing does not list the other bidders, but instead refers to interested companies as Party A, Party B, Party C and Party D. We’re told that Party B is Google, and Party D is Facebook. Party A is Salesforce, and we were unable to identify Party C." Nonetheless, the SEC filing provides the original narrative into how the deal was negotiated and is quite interesting in its own right. 0. http://www.recode.net/2016/7/1/12085946/google-facebook-salesforce-linkedin-acquisition http://www.recode.net/2016/7/1/12085946/google-facebook-sale...
- dibstern 10y agoAwesome, thank you!
- sly010 10y agoFor folks with less time, I really enjoyed the "Acquired" podcast's walkthrough of this same acquisition step by step. They used this same SEC filing as a source, I believe. [0] http://www.acquired.fm/episodes/2016/6/16/episode-14-linkedin http://www.acquired.fm/episodes/2016/6/16/episode-14-linkedi...
- sandstrom 10y agoThey didn't discuss anything from the SEC filing (some of the subject overlapped, but I don't think they'd read it, and they never referred to the filing).
- sly010 10y agoI remember a podcast discussing the topic, even speculating at the different parties. I also remember the Acquired podcast discussing the acquisition. They even have a link to a (different) document at SEC's website. My mind must have pieced it all together. Apologies, I listen to a lot of podcasts. Let's see if I can actually find the podcast I am thinking about...
- rainboiboi 10y agoJust curious, is it normal for SEC filing to document the M&A negotiation process like this one?
- hkhanna 10y agoM&A lawyer here. Yes, in a public company acquisition, a vote of the shareholders of the acquired company is typically required. Part of the required disclosure to those shareholders before the vote is the "Background of the Merger" which describes the negotiation process in detail.
- karakal 10y agoHow did Microsoft know A's offer when it submitted its counter offer? May 9, 2016, Party A submitted a revised proposal to LinkedIn providing for an acquisition of LinkedIn for $171 per share of LinkedIn common stock, with half of the consideration in cash and half in Party A common stock. On May 11, 2016, Microsoft submitted a revised proposal to acquire LinkedIn, which provided for an acquisition of LinkedIn for $172 in cash per share of LinkedIn common stock
- dibstern 10y agoParties are likely notified of other party's offers, unless the offer prohibits it, which LinkedIn likely wouldn't have accepted as it had a hot bidding war on its hands.
- pdq 10y agoWhy do they call this a merger instead of an acquisition? I assume merger means two companies merging into a new third company, versus acquisition being a larger company acquiring a smaller company into a new business unit of the parent company.
- hkhanna 10y agoM&A lawyer here. Two companies merging into a new third company is called a "consolidation" rather than a merger and its not very common, especially when public companies are involved. A "merger" is when one company merges into another and one of the two companies thereby goes out of existence. That may strike you as strange here since both LinkedIn and Microsoft will continue to exist post-merger. But to "acquire" all of a company you need to acquire all of its shares. But when a company is widely held like LinkedIn, you're probably not going to get every last shareholder to tender over their shares. So you structure the deal as a merger: Microsoft forms a shell subsidiary ("Merger Sub") that merges with and into LinkedIn. (Lawyers call this a "reverse triangular merger.") If a majority of LinkedIn shareholders approve the merger, all shareholders are bound to it. In this way, a majority of shareholders can force all the rest of the shareholders to sell to Microsoft. The Merger Sub is necessary since 1) both Microsoft and LinkedIn want to continue to exist and a merger requires that an entity blinks out of existence and 2) a vote of the shareholders of Microsoft is not required since Microsoft is not directly merging with anybody.
- Pyxl101 10y agoA very interesting explanation, thank you! Could you elaborate on how this results in Microsoft having control over the post-merger LinkedIn?
- hkhanna 10y agoCertainly. As I mentioned above, Microsoft forms a shell company ("Merger Sub") which is the entity that actually merges with and into LinkedIn. When Microsoft forms the shell company, it actually incorporates a new company, usually in Delaware, and that new company issues all of its stock to Microsoft, which, since it's a brand new corporation, could be one share or ten million shares, it doesn't matter, since Microsoft owns all of it. Merger Sub, which doesn't operate any business, is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft since Microsoft owns all of the stock of Merger Sub. The Merger Agreement, signed by Microsoft, LinkedIn and Merger Sub, governs what happens to this stock of Merger Sub (and the stock of LinkedIn) at the moment Merger Sub merges into LinkedIn and out of existence. Although I haven't read it in detail for this deal, what typically happens in a reverse triangular merger is that the Merger Agreement will say that all of the outstanding stock of Merger Sub will automatically convert into stock of LinkedIn. It will also say that all of the outstanding stock of LinkedIn (held by the public shareholders) will convert into a right to receive the "per share merger consideration", which is basically that shareholder's portion of the cash Microsoft paid for LinkedIn ($196 per share, in this case). When the dust settles, then, Microsoft will own all the outstanding shares of LinkedIn, since Merger Sub's shares converted into them when Merger Sub was merged out of existence. The former LinkedIn shares held by the public now is just a right to receive some cash and no longer represents ownership in LinkedIn. With Microsoft now owning 100% of LinkedIn's shares, in theory, it could elect its own board of directors of LinkedIn, thus giving them control of the company.
- arikr 10y agoThis is an easy summary of this exact SEC doc: http://www.recode.net/2016/7/2/12085428/linkedin-microsoft-salesforce-google-deal-timeline http://www.recode.net/2016/7/2/12085428/linkedin-microsoft-s...