TTR Dealmaker Q&A – Sergio Michelsen (Brigard & Urrutia)

TTR Dealmaker Q&A

September, 2015

Almacenes Éxito acquires 50% stake in Ségisor and 100% of Libertad

USD 1.86bn

Sergio Michelsen
Brigard & Urrutia

See Advisor’s Complete Track Record

Sergio Michelsen, a partner at Brigard & Urrutia in Bogotá, led the Colombian legal team that advised Casino Groupe on its sale of a 50% stake in France-based Ségisor, thecontrolling entity of GPA in Brazil, and a 100% stake in Argentina-based Libertad to Colombia’s largest retailer, Almacenes Éxito, for USD 1.86bn

________________________________________________________________________________

Q: What was each party seeking to accomplish in this transaction?

A: In the case of Éxito, it had committed to regional expansion and thus this acquisition enables it to become a true “multilatina” and comply with such commitment. In the case of Casino, it can unify the management under Éxito and ensure that the companies in the four countries of South America where it has a presence, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina and Uruguay, extract all the synergies as well.

Q: How did Brigard & Urrutia land this mandate?

A: We have been advising Casino with all its Colombian and other Latin American business for almost 20 years. We initially advised Casino when it acquired a 25% stake in Éxito and a year after when it acquired a controlling interest in Cativen in Venezuela. Subsequently, several years after, the Venezuelan government nationalized Cativen and we advised Casino on the implications that such event would have on its Colombian operations. In the meantime, we advised Casino on its consolidation of control in Éxito. We have also advised Éxito, particularly in connection with the acquisition of the second-largest retail company in Colombia, Carulla, and last year in the acquisition of another large retailer, Super Inter. More recently we advised Casino on the sale of its participation in the leading retail company in Uruguay, which was also sold to Éxito.

Q: What did this transaction entail in terms of resource allocation?

A: We had the M&A practice group primarily involved with the support of our corporate, capital markets and tax practice groups. We also coordinated closely with French, Brazilian and Argentine counsel.

Q: What made this deal unique from other transactions Brigard has advised on?

A: Since this was a related party transaction, we were very keen on making sure that the transaction fully complied with Colombian law and good corporate governance practices. To such effect, counsel to Casino and Éxito negotiated on an arm’s length basis, further ensuring that the transaction would be beneficial to all parties involved. As an example, the transaction was approved by Éxito’s non-conflicted board members and by its shareholders assembly. The parties engaged independent advisors, provided all the shareholders with the relevant information and Éxito further obtained a fairness opinion from Merrill Lynch. In this respect I would say that this was not the typical deal where you look after the specific interest of your client, but rather we had to consider the interest of all parties involved.

Q: In what ways does this transaction advance Éxito’s regionalization program?

A: Éxito now has a stake in Brazil’s largest retailer, Pão de Açúcar, as well as in interesting retailers in Uruguay and Argentina. In terms of sales, Éxito will be the largest company in Colombia in terms of sales and can now be called a true “multilatina” with its stake in in Brazil’s largest retailer, the largest in Uruguay, and in Libertad in Argentina.

Q: How will the transaction impact Éxito’s profile as a potential target for the likes of Wal-Mart?

A: I do not believe that Exito is within Wal-mart’s plans or that its shareholders want to sell the company. However, Éxito has expanded its footprint in a very significant way and this should make it very appealing to any global retailer. By being the leading retailer in Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay with a significant presence in Argentina, Éxito becomes the leading retailer in South America.

Q: What other transactions do you expect to stem from this deal?

A: Now that Éxito is a leading retailer in the region, whenever an opportunity arises it will be called to the table. In Central America, the retail market can be expected to consolidate, while in Chile and Peru consolidation will also happen, though it could take longer given the fact that the Chilean retailers are already entrenched. Éxito will be in a position to seek those opportunities when they arise. I would say consolidation is certainly going to occur in Central America where Wal-Mart has quite an advantage. The smaller forces are coming together and the logical next step would be selling to a larger regional player, and at that point Éxito would be very well positioned to do an acquisition. In Chile it’s different, it’ll take much longer. In Peru that’s going to take longer as well, but eventually those two markets should be consolidated.

Q: To what extent has Éxito demonstrated an appetite for the wholesale club format?

A: I haven’t heard that much discussion in this context; I’ve seen more of an interest in e-retail. In that respect, Pão de Açúcar is the leader in Brazil and Casino also has its own platform with C-Discount. The synergies among the members of the group will ensure that e-retail will be quickly deployed in the countries where they have a presence. A couple of years ago I read an interview with the CEO of Wal-Mart when he was asked, “Who is your biggest competitor?” He immediately said Amazon. While Amazon has just a fraction of the sales of the big global retailers, it is clearly a leader in the e-retail business and thus a company to watch. Therefore, leapfrogging from the traditional retail to e-retail seems a very logical path and in this respect the transaction will add substantial value by taking advantage of a very good e-commerce platform in Brazil that can be applied to other regional markets.

See-Full-Transactions-Details

Download PDF

TTR Dealmaker Q&A – Sergio Díez (Cariola Díez Pérez-Cotapos & Cía Abogados)

 

TTR Dealmaker Q&A

August, 2015

EPM acquires Aguas de Antofagasta from Inversiones Punta Rieles

USD 965m

Sergio Díez
Cariola Díez Pérez-Cotapos & Cía Abogados

Sergio Díez, partner at Santiago, Chile-based Cariola Díez Pérez-Cotapos & Cía Abogados led the local legal team that advised EPM on its USD 965m acquisition of Grupo Luksic’s water production and treatment company, Aguas de Antofagasta (ADASA), held by Inversiones Punta Rieles.
________________________________________________________________________________

Q: What did this transaction represent for the firm?

A: This transaction had special importance due to the many angles of interest that had to align to close the deal. Initially we had to provide assistance to EPM on an efficient acquisition structure, from legal, tax and regulatory standpoints, especially considering the acquisition was of a regulated entity. In parallel, an extensive legal and financial due diligence process took place in connection with a complex and huge corporation and its business. Finally, we should point out that between the date EPM presented its binding offer and the date in which the SPA was signed, only a short period of time elapsed, and consequently, it presented a very challenging scenario for our lawyers due to the complexity of the different areas involved and the lack of information and time.

Q: What made this deal stand out from other M&A mandates?

A: Each transaction is unique and has its own complexities. In this particular case, the transaction distinguished itself from others, firstly, for its USD 965m value. The fact that EPM had a complete staff of advisors was also impressive. Finally, the variety of angles from which the acquisition had to be deeply analyzed also generated a special complexity not seen in every transaction.

Q: What challenges did the deal present for the firm?

A: As a relevant consideration, the organizational, regulatory and environmental analysis of ADASA was very complex due to the fact that its business is linked with the prior operation of a public company, is heavily regulated under an agreement with public concessions company, ECONSSA, and supervised by various regulators. Also, the transaction involved all kinds of assets, rights and permits, owned by ADASA and by ECONSSA. Finally, ADASA’s operation is governed by both regulated and non-regulated agreements, and affects services rendered in different locations.

Q: How did the deal demonstrate the firm’s competencies?

A: Cariola was able to adivise EPM through a considerable group of lawyers, with different specializations, such as corporate, regulatory and environmental, sanitation, tax, labor, real estate, financial and intellectual property, among others. This coordinated work allowed EPM to obtain a complete overview of the company from its different scenarios. Working together with other EPM advisors and with the seller’s consultants, we were able to find and provide solutions for different situations in order to move forward and close the acquisition.

Q: What does this transaction represent for the sector itself?

A: We think this transaction is positive for the sector, especially considering EPM is one of the most important companies in Colombia, and moreover, the most important utility in the country. Also, EPM has investments in many countries of Latin America in water, sanitation, energy and telecommunications, among other sectors, and has always distinguished itself for great service and management.

Q: What foreign ownership limits were relevant to this transaction?

A: In Chile, there are no ownership restrictions for foreigners in connection with this type of resource. Nonetheless, we were able to coordinate presentations for EPM in order to explain the regulations currently in place governing water resources and water rights, while also anticipating future amendments to the water code.

See-Full-Transactions-Details

Download PDF

TTR Dealmaker Q&A – Moshe Sendacz (Machado, Meyer, Sendacz e Opice Advogados)

TTR Dealmaker Q&A

July, 2015

Telefónica acquires GVT from Vivendi

EUR 7.5bn

Moshe Sendacz
Machado, Meyer, Sendacz e Opice Advogados

On 28 May, Spain’s Telefónica closed the acquisition of Curitiba, Brazil-based triple-play provider GVT from France-based Vivendi in a transaction worth EUR 7.5bn. Moshe Sendacz, a founding partner at one of Brazil’s leading M&A firms, led the team that advised the buyer on this monumental deal.
________________________________________________________________________________

Q: Why was your firm selected to act on behalf of Telefónica in this transaction?

A: It was a natural selection because we have been assisting the Telefónica Group since the privatization of Telebras in 1996-1997. We’ve been assisting Telefónica in all the transactions it carries out in Brazil, including when it competed for GVT and lost to Vivendi in 2009.

Q: What expertise did Machado, Meyer, Sendacz e Opice bring to the table?

A: The deal required expertise in various areas, with one of the most challenging being regulatory. Our capital markets practice played an important role in a follow-on issuance involved in the GVT deal in the amount of USD 5bn in shares, which was entirely subscribed. This was an overwhelming success at a difficult time in Brazil’s capital market. It was a very complex deal for the firm’s M&A practice, as Vivendi received part of the purchase price in cash, and part in shares of Telefônica Brasil through the merger of GVT’s shares into Telefônica Brasil; a portion of Telefônica Brasil shares thus received by Vivendi were subsequently exchanged by Vivendi with Telefónica for shares held by Telefónica in Telecom Italia, thus allowing Telefónica to begin exiting its investment in Telecom Italia and its indirect ownership in TIM Brasil. Our tax team also played an important role in solving, in an efficient manner, several tax issues faced in all aspects of the deal. The simultaneous closing in São Paulo, Paris, Milan and Madrid contributed to the complexity of the deal.

“It was a very complex deal for the firm’s M&A practice, as Vivendi received part of the purchase price in cash, and part in shares of Telefônica Brasil through the merger of GVT’s shares into Telefônica Brasil”

Q: What concerns did the regulators raise?

A: The Brazilian regulators forced Telefónica to exit its stake in Telecom Italia because of the condition barring it from indirectly holding shares in two competing operators in Brazil, namely Telecom Italia’s subsidiary TIM Brasil, the country’s number two player in mobile with 27.1% market share, and Telefônica Brasil, the market leader with 28.5% market share in mobile services. The Brazilian regulators were also concerned about that portion of the deal that would result in Vivendi receiving, as part of the GVT purchase price, shares of Telefônica Brasil, thus becoming a direct shareholder in Telefônica Brasil and an indirect shareholder in TIM Brasil as a result of the swap of shares between Telefónica and Vivendi. These two main issues required a complex negotiation with Brazilian antitrust authorities and telecom regulator, Anatel.

Q: How long did the negotiations with regulators take to conclude?

A: We started to approach the local authorities immediately after the execution of the SPA in September, 2014, and before making any required filings. Negotiations with the regulators commenced in October, 2014 and concluded in March, 2015.

Q: Telefónica had been the expected buyer of GVT in 2009. What went wrong then?

A: The seller decided to accept Vivendi’s offer for the controlling shares, and Telefónica gave up on the public tender offer it had launched to acquire GVT. In 2014 Vivendi manifested its desire to exit Brazil and Telefónica decided to present an offer for GVT. Vivendi also received an offer from Telecom Italia for the same asset. Telefónica’s offer conditions were much more attractive, and Vivendi decided to proceed with Telefónica. The purchase agreement was negotiated in record time in just two weeks: one week in São Paulo and one week in Paris, concluding with the signing on 18 September, 2014.

“The purchase agreement was negotiated in record time in just two weeks: one week in São Paulo and one week in Paris”

Q: What prompted Vivendi to sell GVT?

A: Telecom is a very capital-intensive business; it needs investment all the time. Vivendi was small relative to other players in the market to compete effectively and the company required more capital to grow the business.

Q: Apart from being extremely profitable, what made this asset so attractive for Telefónica?

A: It would complement geographically and also GVT is very strong in broadband. It has a very attractive fiber network and a strong presence in the corporate market.

Q: Why is GVT so profitable?

A: It was very well structured and managed by its CEO, Amos Genish, one of the founding shareholders of GVT. He’s now the top telecom guy in Brazil and has accepted the position of CEO at Telefônica Brasil. He is the leading executive at Telefónica Group in the country, which GVT is now part of.

Q: How was a multiple of 14.86x on 2013 EBITDA arrived at?

A: The telecom market is undergoing consolidation in Brazil. GVT was at the point where it would start to lose market share, but it represented synergies for the buyer. It was one of the few assets in play in a consolidated market; there’s a price in that. There was virtually no geographical overlap. The regulatory issue was in the crossed ownership of Telefónica and Telecom Italia and Vivendi and Telefônica Brasil. The antitrust and telecom authorities approved the merger of operations with no relevant objections, and more importantly, the price paid by Telefônica Brasil to Vivendi was supported by appraisals and opinions prepared by investment banks by using criteria typically adopted in deals of this nature.

Q: What does this transaction represent for the telecom sector in Brazil?

A: Telefônica has now improved its offering mainly in Internet and data services thanks to GVT’s strong fiber network. It’s a strong and solid company. It was already the largest telecom operator in Brasil. GVT was not a competitor. In fact, one of the issues raised during the negotiations with the regulatory authorities was that it could become a good competitor, because it was growing, but it was not the intent of Vivendi to invest heavily to realize that growth, so essentially the competitive landscape remains the same after the deal. The telecom market is dominated by Telefônica, TIM Brasil, Claro and Oi, which together control around 95% of the market. I believe there is no room for more operators. The transaction won’t impact pricing for consumers, but Telefônica can now compete in areas where it was not a major player previously.

Q: What made this transaction unique among deals your firm has advised on?

A: First, for the consideration involved. This was the biggest M&A transaction in Brazil, in terms of price, of the past 35 years. Secondly, owing to the complexity of the transaction, it was important for the firm to be involved. It was very important for the firm to strengthen its professional relationship with Telefónica and build on the confidence the country’s largest telecom has in us so that we can continue assisting the company in the years ahead.

“This was the biggest M&A transaction in Brazil, in terms of price, of the past 35 years”

Q: How did the firm celebrate the closing?

A: With a lot of Champagne. Simultaneous parties were held to celebrate at Telefónica’s country headquarters in Madrid and here in São Paulo.

See-Full-Transactions-Details


Download PDF

Mexico’s revision of maritime regulatory framework brings clarity in wake of energy reform

torres-medina

By Benjamin Torres and Hector Medina

Baker & McKenzie México 

Mexico is restructuring its entire regulatory framework governing the energy sector, and hasn’t neglected the need to address ambiguities hindering private sector participation in linked industries governed by maritime law.

The first step in the country’s sweeping energy reform was taken by the Mexican government on 20 December, 2013, with landmark amendments to certain key articles of the Mexican Constitution related to the energy sector, including hydrocarbons and power generation. Those amendments are the legal foundation for broader participation by private entities in several activities that were previously reserved for Mexican nationals or the Mexican state.

Mexico has made several attempts to stimulate the development of its energy sector over the years, including the so-called “Energy Reform” spearheaded by former president Felipe Calderon in 2008. The truth is, none of the previous attempts had the desired effect, since any real change required a revision of the fundamental legal framework governing the energy sector in Mexico: the Constitution.

The recent constitutional reforms have led to the enactment of a new set of energy laws and regulations as well as substantive amendments to other laws and regulations to align them with the new energy reform framework. The intention is clear: to allow greater private participation in the entire Mexican energy sector, downstream, midstream and upstream, whether hydrocarbons or power.

The reform is still in its implementation phase and there are several regulations, administrative guidelines and other regulatory provisions yet to be issued. However, over the last year, the reform has achieved measurable results, particularly in the hydrocarbons sector with the publication of tenders for offshore shallow-water exploration and production and production enhancement under the Round One bidding procedure, which were published by the recently strengthened Mexican National Hydrocarbons Commission (CNH). The call for tenders has been well received by many of the relevant players in the domestic and international energy industry. Several well-known companies in the upstream sector are participating in different stages of the tender process.

There are other sectors of activity that have been realigned with the new energy policies introduced by the Mexican government as a result of the constitutional reforms. The maritime sector, which has a very close connection to the oil and gas industry in offshore exploration and production operations, is governed by the Navigation and Maritime Commerce Law enacted in June 2006 (the NMC law).

The NMC law governs the operation of vessels and other naval artifacts in Mexican waters as well as the most important agreements related to such activities including charter parties and purchase and sale agreements, among others. A naval artifact is defined as any fixed or floating structure not designed or built for navigation but that is capable of being moved on the water by itself or by another vessel, or built on the water.

Regulations for the NMC Law were published in the Federal Official Gazette on 4 March, 2015 and became effective on 4 April, 2015.

Prior to the enactment of the NMC law, two previous versions of navigation laws coexisted and remained in force: a Navigation Law enacted in 1994 as well as another Navigation Law and Maritime Commerce Law enacted in 1963. Both were repealed by the new NMC law except for certain regulations under the Navigation Law of 1994, which remained in effect. Those regulations have now been furnished by the new regulation published on 4 March, 2015, which offer new guidelines for private sector business opportunities.

Prior to the new regulations of the NMC Law, the legal standing of foreign vessels in Mexican waters operated by foreign navigation companies was not entirely clear and according to some interpretations, only Mexican navigation companies could operate foreign-flagged vessels in Mexico by securing a temporary navigation permit limited to a maximum of two years. These permits are granted for a period of three months and can be renewed up to seven times. If the vessel stays more than two years in Mexican waters, it has to be flagged as Mexican, but certain exceptions may apply for highly specialized vessels, including those dedicated to oil and gas activities.

It was, however, possible for foreign navigation companies to operate foreign-flagged naval artifacts, such as drilling rigs and production platforms under temporary authorizations. This confusing legal structure led foreigners to implement complex corporate and tax structures involving incorporation of Mexican navigation companies to hold permits to operate foreign-flagged vessels and still comply with restrictions on foreign investment provided by the law.

The new regulations to the NMC law provide a much clearer process to allow foreign entities to secure permits to operate foreign-flagged vessels and naval artifacts, such as rigs and production platforms. Although foreign navigation companies will continue to face some restrictions, these will not represent a significant obstacle to their business activities. Moreover, the new regulations provide specific treatment for vessels and naval artifacts dedicated to oil and gas activities, including its regulation of navigation and permanency in Mexican waters, safety and inspection, crew training, and prevention of pollution caused by hydrocarbons, among other matters critically important to prepare an efficient business plan.

Article 40 of the NMC law provides that “the operation and exploitation of vessels in interior and coastal navigation is reserved to Mexican navigation companies with Mexican vessels”. However, an exception is provided in case of the lack of existence of available Mexican vessels in equal technical conditions or in case of public interest, where it is possible to grant temporary permits for coastal navigation in favor of Mexican navigation companies with foreign vessels.

Moreover, Article 41 of the NMC law provides that “having conducted the bidding process with the preference provided under items I and II of the above Article, a permit may be granted for a new procedure including foreign navigation companies with foreign vessels.” It is important to mention that prior the enactment of the new regulations to the NMC law, there was no clear procedure provided to include foreign navigation companies with foreign vessels and therefore to issue temporary navigation permits in favor of foreign navigation companies with foreign vessels, as provided under Article 41.

Now, the new regulations to the NMC law, provide under Article 226 that, “the foreign navigation companies, in order to exploit and operate foreign vessels in coastal navigation, will require a temporary navigation permit according to Article 41 of the NMC law…”.

In light of the above, the possibility for a foreign navigation company to apply for a temporary navigation permit to operate foreign vessels in coastal Mexican waters has greater clarity than under the previous regulation. It is provided, however, that the Maritime Transportation Industrial Chamber must be notified as to the application of any permit, such that the chamber may indicate the availability of a Mexican vessel with the same technical capabilities. A general notice must be served to Mexican navigation companies so they can exercise their preferential right granted under Article 40 of the NMC law, as outlined above.

In conclusion, if a foreign navigation company applies for a temporary navigation permit to operate a foreign vessel in Mexican coastal waters, the procedure described above shall be conducted and all the conditions under Article 41 of the NMC law and under Article 226 of its new regulations must be complied with, so the corresponding authority can issue a navigation permit, even if it is a foreign navigation company with a foreign vessel.

OTHER OPPORTUNITIES IN MEXICO’S MARITIME SECTOR

Another important activity that is expected to be further developed in Mexico is ship building. This is also reflected in the new regulations to the NMC law, which added specific provisions and standards for such activities, including the granting of authorizations for shipyards to operate in Mexico.

The Mexican government’s effort to harmonize all sectors involved or related with the new energy industry has been remarkable, and the maritime sector constitutes clear evidence of this.

In addition to the enactment of the regulations to the NMC law, the federal government aims to foster and promote the sector. Last year, it announced a plan to update the applicable regulatory framework to increase the legal certainty in connection with the merchant marine; extend and modernize port infrastructure; and modernize the maritime fleet, focused on highly specialized equipment for the oil and gas sector. The plan also includes substantial investment.

Companies interested in participating in maritime business opportunities in Mexico will need to fully understand and be well advised of the Mexican maritime regulatory framework, including its recent developments, in order to carry out an effective business plan and implement the most efficient corporate and tax structures.

________________________________________________________________________________

About the authors

Benjamin Torres is a partner at Baker & McKenzie and head of the firm’s energy, mining and infrastructure practice in Mexico.

Hector Medina is an associate in the firm’s real estate group, and a member of the mining, energy and infrastructure practice group.

TTR Dealmaker Q&A – Manuel Romano (Jones Day Mexico)

manuel-romano

TTR Dealmaker Q&A

June, 2015

NII Holdings sells Nextel Mexico to AT&T

USD 1.88bn

Manuel Romano 
Jones Day Mexico

On 30 April, NII Holdings successfully concluded the sale of its Mexico-based subsidiary, Nextel de Mexico, to AT&T for USD 1.88bn. Manuel Romano, a partner in Jones Day’s Mexico City office who focuses his practice on mergers and acquisitions, led the local team that advised NII Holdings on the sale.
________________________________________________________________________________

Q: How did Jones Day land the mandate?

A: NII Holdings, the parent of Nextel Mexico, has been a longstanding client of the firm in the US. We have advised the company in various countries in Latin America and due to our deep experience in handling this type of cross-border transaction and the strength of our US-Mexico footprint, there was no beauty contest. We had helped them a few years ago with the sale and lease back of towers, so we were known by the Mexican subsidiary, and that made things easier.

Q: At what stage in the negotiations was Jones Day’s Mexico City office retained?

A: We were retained right after the bidding process was concluded, in November, 2014. To clarify, it was the firm that was retained, with lawyers in the US involved as well, not just our Mexico City office.

Q: What changes in the market paved the way for this transaction?

A: This deal happened because of the telecom reform – because the sector became clearly opened, so the dominant player is now induced not to be dominant, and in that sense, it has to divest certain assets and or share certain infrastructure, as we all know. I think we have to look at this from a federal administration standpoint. It took only one-and-a-half to two years to pass since the PRI took office and began waving the flag of telecom reform. Of course these reforms are hard to pass; they impact very important sectors and very important entities. América Móvil and or Telmex, was the most affected. Two years was not a long time to get it through the two chambers in Mexico.

Q: What were the most challenging aspects of the transaction from the Mexico perspective and for the lawyers from Jones Day in Mexico City?

A: They were two large entities. AT&T didn’t have a large presence before, but Nextel was obviously a large, complex entity. In general the regulatory aspects of Nextel were a challenge; this company had so many concessions that had to be looked at closely to see if authorization was required or a simple notice was required to the Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT). The sheer number of retail outlets was also a challenge. These were small stores that each had their own lease agreements. They topped 700, easily, and each had its difficulties being transferred. We had to identify which ones were important, and a lot of information had to go through the purchaser. The regulatory issues and volume of information presented a challenge.

Q: Were there any competition concerns surrounding the deal?

A: Our firm didn’t handle the antitrust process, but the hurdles with Iusacell when that deal took place were less than when the Nextel transaction happened. The conditions were very light, however; It’s hard to argue against a transaction where your competitor has 70% of the market. That was still the case when the Nextel sale unfolded.

“It’s hard to argue against a transaction where your competitor has 70% of the market.”

Q: What are some of the challenges in representing a sell-side client like NII in this deal?

A: The way that agreements are drafted on the sell side, the seller is responsible for any or most information that’s provided to the purchaser. It’s a challenge with companies and transactions of this size, to be exhaustive in providing information to the purchaser.

Q: How does this transaction reshape the playing field?

A: It definitely reshapes the market. For many, many years there was one huge player: América Móvil, Telmex and then Telefónica, Iusacell and Nextel; more than 70% of the market was dominated by Telmex. Iusacell and Nextel together will be a 15% player with deep pockets, and in this telecom market, a lot of money is required to invest, and that’s what you have with AT&T. You have a competitor with 15% of the market planning to invest its money in México.

Q: Where does this leave Telefónica/Movistar?

A: It leaves it in a better position. Now you have two big competitors against a huge giant; it’s a better position to have. Plus, the reform gives it access to infrastructure of the dominant player.

Q: How did this transaction demonstrate the capacities of Jones Day’s Mexico City office?

A: First because it was a big deal in the market given the value, in a sector where deals are big but deals are few, and second because our substantial capabilities in Mexico are part of an integrated law firm working collaboratively to advise clients on complex matters. In this case, the sale agreement is governed by New York law and our colleagues in the US were equally important to the deal’s success. With lawyers in Mexico City, New York, and several more Spanish-speaking lawyers in our Miami office on the team, we worked as a single firm. It’s a much more efficient and effective approach than information flowing between cooperating but distinct firms.

Q: Will your firm’s performance in this deal encourage other Mexican firms to merge with peers from the US?

A: I’m the biggest advocate of that concept. In the past year or two, many Mexican firms have merged. The rationale? From the US partner’s perspective, it’s a big market down there, what better way to serve our clients than to have a presence in Mexico?

Q: Have you found that Mexican corporates favor a local firm over a foreign firm that can provide the same service, or vice versa?

A: I don’t think Mexican corporates are enemies of their money – so they go for the best regardless of where the firm is from. Our approach to serving clients as one firm worldwide is a terrific fit for Mexican corporates.

Q: Is Mexico’s legal market ripe for consolidation?

A: We have a big economy by LatAm standards, and we’re the country with the smaller firms regionally. It will happen in Mexico and between Mexican firms and peers from abroad; internal consolidation doesn’t necessarily clash with cross-border deals. If you’re a smaller Mexican firm, you better do something; you cannot remain a five-lawyer firm.

Q: How does the firm split its work between buy-side and sell-side mandates?

A: I would say that we are 60-70% more on the buyer side, just because the US origin of the firm, and it’s more common for US entities to come and purchase businesses down here than for Mexican companies to go and buy.

Q: What’s your outlook for M&A activity in Mexico for the next 18 months?

A: It’s looking a lot better than 2008, about the time when we joined Jones Day, which opened in Mexico in 2009. Our side of the market, which is serving our global clients in Mexico, and mostly US clients because that’s where the firm comes from, is pretty simple: the US is doing better, interest rates are low, and lately, with the devaluation of the Mexican peso, we have richer clients to purchase those cheaper assets – it’s a good time and a good outlook as long as the US economy is doing well.

 

Download PDFSee-Full-Transactions-Details