This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
90


Legal Focus


JULY 2013


The Legal Compliance Challenges in M&A Transactions


To find out more about the legal compliance challenges in M&A transactions, Lawyer Monthly speaks to Maurizio Delfino from Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.


Please introduce yourself, your role and your firm.


Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP have over 600 attorneys in offices located in New York, Washington (D.C.), Paris, Brussels, London, Frankfurt, Milan and Rome. In Italy, Delfino e Associati, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (the “Firm”) was set up in 2000.


M&A activity regarding listed and unlisted corporations, for both financial and strategic investors operating in diverse industries has historically been the core of our practice: we have worked on hostile and friendly takeovers and on some of the most significant cross border acquisitions which took place in Italy in recent years and on a large number of mid-size deals as well, assisting both Italian and foreign clients. In recent years, our M&A activity has also involved the acquisition of distressed and insolvent companies.


A recent report by the Economist Intelligence Unit shows that compliance and governance standards in takeover targets are a major concern for dealmakers as cross-border M&A activity picks up. What are your thoughts on this?


I think that they are right, even though I am not familiar with this report.


Over the past years M&A transactions have become increasingly complex, in parallel with the expansion of compliance requirements. Corporate law requirements have become more complex, but it is compliance which has really made the difference.


Twenty years ago, in Italy, except for special situations, for compliance purposes the main risk areas were tax and, occasionally, antitrust. At one point, environmental compliance became a significant risk. Then, labour and workers’ health and safety issues became an area of serious concern and then again anti money laundering, corruption (both domestic and international), various forms of export control, data protection


www.lawyer-monthly.com


and privacy. In parallel, the rules applicable to more traditional areas of compliance, such as the environment, stiffened. Various industries, such as banking, insurance, even the accounting or the legal profession came to be subjected to special rules providing for higher ethical standards and, in parallel, stricter rules of behaviour, sometimes rather complicated to enforce.


At the same time, administrative agencies or the courts were entrusted with the task to enforce the new compliance rules. The mere complexity resulted in conflicting interpretations, not to mention the diverse level of enforcement of certain European regulations in the various European member States. In the case of acquisitions in the field of regulated industries (telecommunications, defence, various financial services) considerations on compliance occasionally play a disproportionate role in the decisions whether or not to proceed, also in the light of the costs (both financial and “cultural”) of post merger integration.


What are the potential risks facing investments expanding into new markets and high risk jurisdictions?


Expanding into new markets normally always brings about risks and opportunities. This is something that a well-organized corporation may handle. It is expansion in high risk jurisdictions which even a well organized corporation may find challenging. Typically, in high risk jurisdictions there is not only a higher likelihood of fraud or corruption practices, but a more general failure to comply with diverse regulations. Bad surprises may result in areas, or locations, or with people or situations which an ordinary due diligence, i.e., a due diligence which did not expressly focus on compliance and related processes, would easily overlook. Corporate compliance should be a primary concern for dealmakers entering cross-border activities in high risk jurisdictions and attentive to their reputation. In some cases, both pre-closing and post-closing due diligence are usually warranted, plus periodical monitoring.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132