DealMaker Q&A

Posted on

TTR DealMaker Q&A con Hugo Écija, Socio Fundador y Presidente Ejecutivo de Ecija

Considerado como el Mejor Abogado Español en Derecho de los Medios y en Propiedad Intelectual, por los más prestigiosos rankings y directorios del sector legal (Best Lawyers, Chambers and Partners, Legal 500, Best of the Best), ha participado en las mayores fusiones y operaciones de concentración en el sector de los medios.

_____________________________________________

TTR: ¿Cómo describiría la actividad del mercado de M&A español en lo que va de 2019? 

2019 ha sido un año positivo para el mercado español de M&A. El volumen de transacciones ha aumentado casi un 6% el año pasado. Asimismo, las empresas españolas han incrementado sus inversiones en el extranjero. Algunas cifras dicen que las transacciones aumentaron un 13,4% entre enero y septiembre de este año. Sin embargo, estos datos contrastan con la disminución, en número y valor, de las inversiones realizadas por empresas extranjeras en empresas españolas. 

Somos optimistas dado el protagonismo que han adquirido los fondos de private equity en el cierre de transacciones corporativas. Seguimos viendo interés por adquirir participaciones en compañías tecnológicas y disruptivas; así como un apetito por activos de calidad en el mercado. Todo esto nos lleva a esperar una mejora de la actividad transaccional. 

Para nosotros está siendo un año muy dinámico, ya que estamos liderando transacciones en sectores en auge como la tecnología y los medios de comunicación. También hemos visto un crecimiento de los acuerdos en territorios donde tenemos una fuerte presencia y actividad; como Portugal y América Latina.

TTR:¿Qué opinión le merece el apetito de inversores internacionales por empresas españolas? ¿Qué sectores cree que son más atractivos en la actualidad? 

España continúa siendo un mercado atractivo para los inversores internacionales. Según el informe anual del Organismo de Naciones Unidas para el Comercio y Desarrollo, España ha esquivado la fuerte caída de las inversiones en Europa, que fue prácticamente del 50%, y se ha consolidado como el tercer mayor receptor europeo de inversión extranjera, tras Holanda y Reino Unido. Se trata de la cifra más alta para España desde 2008, principalmente favorecida por adquisiciones empresariales transfronterizas. 

La tendencia del último año ha estado marcada por una clara orientación hacia los sectores de los medios y la tecnología; teniendo en cuenta las fintech, big data, ciberseguridad, movilidad, biotecnología, etc. También se ha fortalecido el sector industrial, inmobiliario y de energías renovables. Estos son algunos de los sectores en los que ECIJA ha asesorado a clientes durante el último año.  

TTR: Uno de los segmentos de mercado que continúa registrando bastante actividad en 2019 es el del Venture Capital. ¿A qué cree que se debe esta circunstancia? 

La inversión en capital riesgo ha alcanzado en el primer semestre del año 4.060 millones de euros, un 21,3% más que en el mismo periodo de 2018. Lo que representa un récord histórico, que se basa sobre todo en la entrada de fondos internacionales en empresas españolas. Estos fondos internacionales mantienen el apetito inversor, tanto en private equity como en venture capital, porque disponen de liquidez y creen que España es un mercado atractivo para invertir. En este contexto, la rentabilidad que ofrece el capital riesgo genera mucho interés.  

El interés de los fondos internacionales se ha atribuido a factores como la calidad de las empresas, las infraestructuras, la preparación del capital humano y el nivel de los servicios profesionales españoles, que son comparables a los de los países más avanzados de Europa.

De la misma forma, se da un notorio cambio de estrategia de grandes y medianas empresas a la hora de acceder a nuevas tendencias, innovación o conocimiento.  La feroz competitividad comercial ha hecho que estas compañías presten especial atención a oportunidades de expansión, buscando la creación de sinergias productivas con un significativo ahorro en costes. El objetivo es fomentar un sistema efectivo con modelos de negocio y soluciones creativas e innovadoras que permitan lograr rápidamente una ventaja competitiva en los mercados en los que tienen presencia o explorar nuevas oportunidades en otros mercados.  

TTR: La mayoría de las operaciones de Venture Capital que se registran en España son rondas Seed o Early Stage. ¿Hay cabida en España para operaciones de Venture Capital de mayor volumen? ¿Estamos convergiendo a los registros de países con mayor tradición en este tipo de operaciones? 

Por supuesto, el mercado de Venture Capital en España está evolucionando a un ritmo muy rápido. Todos los integrantes del ecosistema emprendedor están aportando una parte esencial hacia su dinamización. Esto está permitiendo que cada vez haya más y mejores proyectos invertibles, así como que el dinero bajo gestión de fondos de capital riesgo sea mayor y que las oportunidades de desinversión sean cada vez mejores. 

Actualmente, vemos una clara tendencia hacia la internacionalización de proyectos emprendedores, a los que se les ha quedado insuficiente operar únicamente en el mercado español. Esto ocurre porque hay inversión profesional que apoya este crecimiento y un tejido emprendedor cada vez más preparado y profesionalizado al frente de estos proyectos. 

Además, las condiciones del mercado español junto con el talento existente (y asequible) son casi una situación perfecta para que las empresas tecnológicas establezcan sus centros en el país.

Cabe hacer hincapié en que hemos visto que se ha incrementado la actividad en el intervalo de inversión comprendido entre los 5 y 10 millones de euros y las estimaciones muestran también un gran movimiento en el llamado middle market, con operaciones comprendidas entre 10 y 100 millones de euros. Los volúmenes de inversión están siendo marcados por las considerables rondas de financiación que se están realizando en las start-ups, por lo que es probable una continuación de esta tendencia, alcanzando nuevos máximos históricos. 

A nivel europeo, podemos decir que este resultado es muy positivo, ya que España ha logrado reducir la diferencia con respecto a terceros países ya habituados a este tipo de inversión, como Reino Unido, Alemania y Francia. En este sentido, España supera la media europea de inversión. 

TTR: Como experto en Derecho Audiovisual y de los Medios, ¿diría que hay mercado para pequeñas startups en el sector? ¿Veremos inversiones de Venture Capital?

Como se ha mencionado anteriormente, se están realizando inversiones en todos los sectores, incluyendo la industria audiovisual y de los medios de comunicación. En particular, los OTT (Netflix, HBO, etc.) han desplegado un gran conjunto de producciones en España, destinado a todo mercado de habla hispana. La inversión de capital riesgo se centra, principalmente, en empresas tecnológicas innovadoras con un ADN de transformación digital o disruptivo. En este escenario, el sector audiovisual se está posicionando como una alternativa de inversión; especialmente dado el impulso y los beneficios fiscales que se están dando a las producciones audiovisuales y a las artes escénicas nacionales.  

En conclusión, sin duda, veremos próximamente inversiones en la industria audiovisual. Por todo ello, España es ahora un hub europeo de producción audiovisual, principalmente para series, documentales, animación y cine.

_____________________________________________

English version:

TTR: How would you describe the 2019 M&A market activity in Spain? 

2019 has been a positive year for the Spanish M&A market. The volume of deals has increased nearly 6% last year. Likewise, Spanish companies have incremented their investments abroad. Some figures say that the deals increased 13.4% between January and September. However, this data contrasts with the decrease, in number and value, of the investments carried out by foreign companies on Spanish companies. 

We are optimistic about the future of the M&A market given the relevant leading role acquired by private equity funds in the last months. We continue to see interest in acquiring stakes in tech and disruptive companies; as well as an appetite for quality assets in the market. All this leads us to expect an improvement in transactional activity. 

For us, it has been a very dynamic year since we are leading transactions in the mid-market and booming sectors such as technology and media. We have also seen a growth of deals in territories where we have a strong presence and activity; such as Portugal and Latin America.

TTR: What is your opinion of international investors’ appetite for Spanish companies? What do you think are the most attractive sectors?

Spain continues to be an attractive market for international investors. According to the United Nations Agency for Trade and Development’s annual report, Spain has avoided the sharp drop in investment in Europe reaching almost 50%, and has consolidated itself as the third largest European recipient of foreign investment, following the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. This is the largest figure for Spain since 2008, mainly favoured by cross-border mergers and acquisitions. 

The trend in the last year has been marked by a clear orientation towards media and tech sectors; considering fintech, big data, cybersecurity, mobility, biotech, etc. Industrial, real estate and renewable energy sectors have also been strengthened. These are some of the sectors where ECIJA has been advising clients for the last year.

TTR: The Venture Capital segment continues being very active in the Spanish market in 2019. What are the reasons for this circumstance?

Venture capital investment has reached 4,060 million euros in the first half of the year, which represents a 21.3% increase in comparison to the same period in 2018. This stands out as an all-time record which is based mainly on the entry of international funds into Spanish companies. These international funds have investment appetite with both private equity and venture capital, now that they have liquidity and believe that Spain is an attractive market to invest in. In this context, the return offered by the venture capital generates a lot of interest for funds.  

The interest of international funds can be attributed due to the quality of companies, the infrastructure, the skills of human capital and the level of Spanish professional services, which are comparable to those of the most advanced countries in Europe.

In addition, there is a noticeable change in strategies carried oud by large and medium-sized companies when it comes to accessing new trends, innovation and knowledge.  The fierce commercial competitiveness has made those companies pay special attention to expansion opportunities by seeking the creation of productive synergies with significant cost savings. The goal is to foster effective systems with creative and innovative business models; as well as solutions that can quickly achieve a competitive advantage in markets where they have a presence to explore new opportunities in other markets.  

TTR: Most Venture Capital transactions registered in Spain are Seed or in Early Stage rounds. Is there room in our country for deals of a higher volume? Are we approaching countries with a longer-standing tradition in this kind of deals? 

Of course, venture capital’s market in Spain is evolving at a very rapid pace. All members of the entrepreneurial ecosystem are contributing to start-ups’ dynamization. This is enabling more and better investment projects; along with increased money under venture capital fund management and better opportunities for disinvestment. 

Currently we see a clear trend towards the internationalization of entrepreneurial projects which are showing needs to not only operate in the Spanish market. This is due to the professional investment that supports this growth, and an increasingly prepared and professionalized projects. 

In addition to this, the conditions of the Spanish market along with the existing (and affordable) talent are almost a perfect situation for technology companies to establish their hubs in the country. 

On top of that, we have seen that the activity in the investment range between 5 and 10 million euros has increased and the estimates also show a large movement in the so-called middle market with operations between 10 and 100 million euros. Investment volumes are being marked by the considerable rounds of financing that are being made in start-ups. It is likely to keep this positive trend and reach new all-time highs. 

At a European level, we can say that this result is very positive. Spain has managed to reduce the difference regarding other countries which have already accustomed to this type of investment. These countries include the United Kingdom, Germany and France. In this regard, Spain exceeds the European investment average. 

TTR: As an expert in Audiovisual and Media Law: Do you think there is room for small start-ups in the sector? Will there be Venture Capitalinvestments in it?

As previously mentioned, investments are taking place in all sectors, including audiovisual and media industries. In particular OTTs (Netflix, HBO, etc.) have deployed a large production set in Spain intended to produce all content to Spanish speaking countries. Venture capital investment mainly focuses on innovative technology companies with a disruptive or digital transformation DNA. In this scenario, the audiovisual sector is positioning itself as another alternative when it comes to investing; especially given the momentum and tax benefits that are being given to audiovisual productions and the national performing arts.  In conclusion we will certainly see investments taking place within the audiovisual industry coming soon. For all of this, Spain is certainly now an European hub for audiovisual production, mainly for series, documentaries, animation and movies.

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

Posted on

 

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)

Posted on

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

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

Posted on
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

TTR Dealmaker Q&A – Daniel Del Rio (Basham, Ringe & Correa)

Posted on
QA-Daniel del Rio

TTR Dealmaker Q&A

April, 2015

Crown Holdings acquires Empaque from Heineken

USD 1.23bn

Daniel Del Rio
Basham, Ringe & Correa

On 18 February Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings closed the acquisition of Empaque from Heineken’s wholly owned Mexican subsidiary, Cuauhtémoc Moctezuma. Daniel Del Rio led the legal advisory team in Mexico at Basham, Ringe & Correa that advised the buyer in this USD 1.23bn transaction.
________________________________________________________________________________

Q: Clearly this was an attractive asset that generated healthy cash flow. Why sell it?

A: The strategy for Heineken was to focus more on the main activity of selling beer, and that’s the reason for disposing of this asset, even though according to the strategy of the previous owners, it made sense to have the containers within the production lines. Though it was a good company, Heineken preferred to have someone else supply the cans and bottles rather than continuing to manage this kind of operation.

“Though it was a good company, Heineken preferred to have someone else supply the cans and bottles rather than continuing to manage this kind of operation”

Q: Were there other suitors in the sale process?

A: We know there were several people interested. That aspect of the deal was managed directly and very confidentially by the people representing Heineken.

Q:  Why was Crown Holdings the best buyer for this asset?

A: Crown was looking to position itself better in the Mexican market and saw a very good opportunity. Crown has been in Mexico for a long time and I have been representing the company for the past 25 years. It’s an excellent company, they’ve had good market share, and this was a good opportunity to increase that participation within the Mexican market. Crown has worldwide operations, but it is very much interested in Latin America. Crown is very forward looking and committed for the long-term. It has been an excellent client for us and takes many things into consideration, including the labor force, which they try to maintain. These kind of projects are the ones we like in Mexico, where people are very much committed to good projects, to continue to maintain or increase jobs in Mexico, to continue to make investments.

Q: Why was this asset an attractive acquisition for Crown?

A: You have the asset and you also have the client. This is a product that Heineken requires. When you’re talking about cans and bottles, you can ship them, but it’s much better and more economical to have manufacturing facilities next to your customers rather than having to ship those products, which at the end of the day is burdensome economically. These Heineken companies held under Empaque were producing basically for Heineken production. By buying these assets you have the opportunity to continue to supply these products to the customer and also the customer was very much interested in selling to someone that would continue supplying, because this is a very important asset in order for them to produce and sell beer.

Q:  Is there any restriction that would prevent Crown from supplying other clients?

A: No. There are no restrictions on Crown that would prevent it from selling to other customers. Crown will continue to supply Heineken. Actually Crown is going to be building a new manufacturing facility in Monterrey. It’s more or less associated with this transaction, and it sees an opportunity to increase market share in Mexico generally. Crown’s products are not aimed specifically at brewers, it sells cans used for soda and food products, and closures also. I know the new plant is going to be a major investment, but so far I haven’t seen figures.

Q: What synergies did Crown have with other assets in Mexico?

A: It goes in line with what it had been doing in Mexico. The only difference is that Crown had been focusing on aluminum cans. With this acquisition it acquired SIVESA, a manufacturing facility for glass bottles in Veracruz, in addition to FAMOSA, the can and closures plants in Monterrey, Toluca and Ensenada. The glass business is new for Crown. It also acquired SISA, a silica mine in Veracruz that supplies the raw material for the glass as part of the package. This was also very interesting.

Q: How did Basham land this mandate?

A: We have been working for Crown for many, many years. When this deal arose, it turned to Dechert, its legal advisor in NY and Philadelphia, and to us. We have been working together with Dechert attorneys for many years on behalf of Crown.

“The glass business is new for Crown. It also acquired SISA, a silica mine in Veracruz that supplies the raw material for the glass as part of the package”

Q:  In what areas did Basham demonstrate its strengths in this transaction?

A: Since this was a Mexican transaction, Dechert was bringing most of its experience in these kind of cross-border transactions, and Basham contributed also with this kind of experience as well as with all the details related to Mexican law. The most difficult part was trying to get authorization from Mexico’s antitrust regulators.

Q: What antitrust issues came into play?

A: Crown already had operations in Mexico, and Heineken also had significant market share in Mexico. We had to wait for antitrust approval, and especially for the can business, it required a very deep analysis of the market.

Q:  What convinced regulators that the deal didn’t present a threat to competition?

A: This is not a business where if you have major market share you can impose your conditions. The conditions are established by the market. You have other big players in the field and your clients are big players, not just in the beer, so we’re not talking about small, vulnerable companies that would be subject to uncompetitive conditions.

 

Download PDFSee-Full-Transactions-Details