Businesses of all types and sizes throughout the United States, Mexico and beyond bring their disputes to Gardere's litigation team and receive practical, responsive, boutique-style attention in return. Our clients have access to the firepower and value of a well-known and highly-regarded Firm's capabilities and interdisciplinary strengths.
Gardere has a national and international energy practice formed around our Energy Industry Team, which is a multidisciplinary group of approximately 60 attorneys with diverse backgrounds, experience and skills specific to the energy industry. Our team includes attorneys who have served as in-house counsel for major energy companies, providing a depth of insight into our clients' needs, issues and concerns. We understand and regularly practice in virtually every sector of the energy, and we represent a wide variety of industry participants from multinational corporations to individuals.
From our offices in the United States and Mexico, our International Practice helps clients operate in today’s global economy. We have more than 30 professionals operating as a boutique within an Am Law 200 law firm and are able to provide focused service with the resources of a large firm. We understand that clients who are engaged in the global marketplace need lawyers who can operate seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions. Our international experts are multi-lingual, are culturally fluent and intimately familiar with various legal systems across the world, especially those in Latin America. Whether you need help with commercial transactions, regulatory matters, customs and import regulations, immigration matters, M&A and joint ventures, international disputes, or international tax planning, Gardere’s international team is here to assist you.
We represent domestic and foreign private funds in all aspects of fund formation, fund operations, platform and add-on acquisitions, and portfolio company operations. Our team has a reputation for being the go-to-lawyers for private equity funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds and family offices. We are known for our vast deal experience, the efficient way we staff and manage our work, and the way we maintain our relationships. We get deals done with sophisticated, strategic, and practical advice tailored to the needs of our clients.
*Not admitted to practice law.
Groupon announced on Jun. 2, 2011 that it would be going public. It is rumored that the long-awaited IPO could possibly raise around $3 billion. That size of IPO would give the social buying site a v
aluation estimated at $30 billion, a stark difference from the $5 billion that Google offered to purchase it for just months ago.
And that’s not the only interesting aspect of the IPO. Following the likes of LinkedIn, Renren and Google, Groupon also announced that it will use a dual-class share structure. In its SEC filing, Groupon disclosed that while co-founder and chief executive officer Andrew Mason only owns 7.7% of the company’s Class A stock, he additionally owns 41.7% of Groupon’s Class B stock. Eric Lefkovsky, another co-founder, owns another 41.7% of the Class B Stock. While the rights of the Class B shares were not disclosed in the filing, they typically allow founders to retain control, through greater voting power, of the company while still having shares traded in the public market.
With the recent announcements of both LinkedIn (see our earlier post) and Groupon using the dual-class share structure, we can see that investors and owners have strong opinions, both positive and negative, about this corporate governance structure.
To most investors, two classes of shares are simply seen as unfair. By creating a class of shareholders with super-voting rights, power is given to a select group of shareholders. Typically, senior management is part of the higher voting power class, so there may be less accountability to the publicly traded class, and certainly the publicly traded class has less of a voice. Dual-class IPOs also tend to be priced at lower price-per-earnings and price-per-sales ratios than comparable single-class IPOs. In addition, research shows that shareholders with super-voting rights dislike raising cash through the sale of additional shares or using shares as currency for acquisitions because this might dilute their voting power influence. Thus, these companies may tend to have more debt than companies with single-class structures. Consequently, this research also shows that shares of companies with dual-class structures underperform the stock market.
Nevertheless, the dual-class share structure does have its benefits, at least from a management and founder perspective. Many praise it because it allows management to ignore all kinds of short and medium-term noise in the market to which most public companies fall prey. Thus, the dual-class structure allows managers to create and follow long-term goals that can in turn create long-term value. Additionally, this structure can prevent hostile takeovers that may bring an end to any opportunity of a long-term franchise. All in all, if both classes of shareholders’ goals are aligned, long-term success might be more likely than with a single-class structure.
OUR TAKE: An IPO with dual-class share structures presents a host of benefits and challenges for investors and founders/owners alike. When considering an IPO, companies should know their options and weigh the good and bad to determine which structure will best set their company on a positive trajectory. This decision will not only make a long-term impact in how the company operates, but likely also its success. Investors must weigh the impact of a super-class of stock, and the resulting lack of control, against potential long-term benefits.
*Many thanks to Lamar Dowling, a Gardere summer associate and JD/MBA student at Southern Methodist University, for his contributions to this post.
The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.
You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander. A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.
Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used. For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.
AND and OR may be used in a search. Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance."
The + and - sign operators may be used. The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".
To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks. For example, "Project Finance".
Searches are not case sensitive.