Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Revlon to Pay SEC Fine for “Going Private” Transaction
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: June 27, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently announced that Revlon has agreed to pay an $850,000 fine to resolve charges that it misled investors regarding a “going private” transaction. These transactions generally involve a company delisting and deregistering its stock and cashing out their shareholders so the company or a private equity firm can acquire all of the outstanding shares.
In the current case, Revlon and its controlling shareholder, MacAndrews and Forbes Holdings, proposed a going-private, voluntary exchange offer transaction to bring down the company’s debt. Under the terms of the transaction, Revlon’s minority shareholders could decide whether to exchange their Revlon common stock shares for newly issued preferred stock.
Revlon’s 401(k) plan was administered by a Massachusetts trust company, which determined that it could only allow 401(k) members to tender their shares in the exchange offer if a third-party financial adviser found that the exchange offer provided for “adequate consideration.” To ensure the transaction proceeded smoothly, the SEC alleged that Revlon engaged in various acts of “ring-fencing “to avoid receiving an opinion from the adviser who ultimately found that the terms of Revlon’s proposed “going-private” transaction did not provide for adequate consideration to 401(k) plan participants.
According to the SEC’s order, these acts included:
- Revlon amended the trust agreement it had with the trustee to ensure that the trustee would not share the adequate consideration determination with Revlon.
- Revlon ensured that it was not a party to any engagement letter concerning the adequate consideration determination.
- Revlon directed the trustee to inform Revlon of its decision whether to allow 401(k) members to tender their shares without any reference to the adequate consideration determination.
- In a notice sent to the 401(k) members and publicly filed as an exhibit to the exchange offer documents, Revlon removed the explicit term “adequate consideration” and replaced it with citations to ERISA statutes.
The SEC ultimately concluded that Revlon’s disclosures concerning the Board’s process were materially misleading because Revlon had concealed from both its Board and minority shareholders that it had engaged in “ring-fencing.” In addition, Revlon’s conduct deprived minority shareholders of the opportunity to receive revised, qualified, or supplemental disclosures, including any that might have informed them of the adviser’s adequate consideration opinion.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Dan Brecher, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
- Locations: New York City
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Revlon to Pay SEC Fine for “Going Private” Transaction
Author: Dan Brecher
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently announced that Revlon has agreed to pay an $850,000 fine to resolve charges that it misled investors regarding a “going private” transaction. These transactions generally involve a company delisting and deregistering its stock and cashing out their shareholders so the company or a private equity firm can acquire all of the outstanding shares.
In the current case, Revlon and its controlling shareholder, MacAndrews and Forbes Holdings, proposed a going-private, voluntary exchange offer transaction to bring down the company’s debt. Under the terms of the transaction, Revlon’s minority shareholders could decide whether to exchange their Revlon common stock shares for newly issued preferred stock.
Revlon’s 401(k) plan was administered by a Massachusetts trust company, which determined that it could only allow 401(k) members to tender their shares in the exchange offer if a third-party financial adviser found that the exchange offer provided for “adequate consideration.” To ensure the transaction proceeded smoothly, the SEC alleged that Revlon engaged in various acts of “ring-fencing “to avoid receiving an opinion from the adviser who ultimately found that the terms of Revlon’s proposed “going-private” transaction did not provide for adequate consideration to 401(k) plan participants.
According to the SEC’s order, these acts included:
- Revlon amended the trust agreement it had with the trustee to ensure that the trustee would not share the adequate consideration determination with Revlon.
- Revlon ensured that it was not a party to any engagement letter concerning the adequate consideration determination.
- Revlon directed the trustee to inform Revlon of its decision whether to allow 401(k) members to tender their shares without any reference to the adequate consideration determination.
- In a notice sent to the 401(k) members and publicly filed as an exhibit to the exchange offer documents, Revlon removed the explicit term “adequate consideration” and replaced it with citations to ERISA statutes.
The SEC ultimately concluded that Revlon’s disclosures concerning the Board’s process were materially misleading because Revlon had concealed from both its Board and minority shareholders that it had engaged in “ring-fencing.” In addition, Revlon’s conduct deprived minority shareholders of the opportunity to receive revised, qualified, or supplemental disclosures, including any that might have informed them of the adviser’s adequate consideration opinion.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Dan Brecher, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.