2012 Oil and Gas M&A Year in Review - Themes and Deal Points

12 mars 2013

Ce billet est disponible en anglais seulement.

Recently, the firm’s Calgary office completed its 2012 review of M&A themes and deal terms in the oil and gas sector. We prepared this study based on a review of the 34 public M&A transactions involving corporate targets listed in Canada that were completed or announced between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012. 

This study contains a list of 2012 oil and gas M&A transactions; a review of key 2012 trends in deal terms; a summary of notable features of each transaction; an analysis of the timelines and events of contested bids; a numerical analysis of key deal terms.

A few key themes emerged from our review:

Transaction Form

  • Transactions were clustered around a number of key ideas for buyers: -
    • Gaining access to strategic reserves;
    • Expanding exposure to Canadian resource gas and oil plays;
    • For US buyers, accessing the Canadian oil and gas services market;
    • Building better dividend-paying juniors and intermediates;
    • Rationalizing small capitalization companies; and
    • For small producers, divesting away from international assets.
  • There were a very limited number of oil sands-focused transactions, and only one where the target was focused exclusively in the oil sands. Transportation uncertainty weighed on the sector.
  • Activity remained concentrated in the upstream sector, where more than 70% of deals were for companies which had oil and gas exploration and production as their only business.
  • There were only six deals done in 2012 where the consideration received by target shareholders was more than $1 billion. The majority of transactional activity was for targets valued at between $100 million and $1 billion.
  • Cash was the sole form of consideration in only one-third of deals.

Contested Transactions

  • There were two successful topping bids this year (on Spartan Oil and Open Range Energy) and one failed topping bid (on Progress Energy)
  • There was one hostile bid (on Hyduke Energy Services) and two failed bids (on Hyduke and Veraz Petroleum)
  • One transaction (that involving Pace Oil & Gas, AvenEx Energy and Charger Energy) elicited an activist campaign against the transaction

Agreed Transaction Terms

  • Deals had an over-whelming preference for the Canadian “plan of arrangement” structure – this form was used 93% of the time. In many cases these agreements were completed quickly – the average being about 10 to 14 days. One agreement was negotiated in two days.
  • Deals continued to be done with large lock-ups. Almost 75% of transactions had lockups of more than 10% of the target equity, reflecting in part the high-level of officer and director ownership in targets.
  • The majority of transactions required the parties to use their “reasonable commercial efforts” to secure regulatory approvals. Only 7% required the parties to use some form of “best efforts”.
  • Buyers did not use gates to closing based on specific triggers such as termination costs or impairment of asset rights very frequently – each of these terms appeared in only 15% to 30% of deals. Instead, they typically relied on the more general “absence of material adverse change”.
  • 86% of deals gave the buyer a right to match superior proposals, and 57% of transactions afforded a three day period in which to make that matching offer.
  • Reverse break fees are so common that we may have to invent another name for them. Over 70% of deals provided for a reverse break fee and of these fees, 91% were the same as the target’s break fee. It was, however, much less common for buyers to recover expenses in addition to the break fee. Only 23% of deals provided for this.
  • None of the deals provided for a “go shop”.

For more information on this survey, or to receive a copy of the document, please contact Sarah Stone.

MISE EN GARDE : Cette publication a pour but de donner des renseignements généraux sur des questions et des nouveautés d’ordre juridique à la date indiquée. Les renseignements en cause ne sont pas des avis juridiques et ne doivent pas être traités ni invoqués comme tels. Veuillez lire notre mise en garde dans son intégralité au www.stikeman.com/avis-juridique.

Restez au fait grâce à Notre savoir