This account is pending registration confirmation. Please click on the link within the confirmation email previously sent you to complete registration. Need a new registration confirmation email? Click here
NEW YORK (
TheStreet) - A settlement involving
Barclays Capital(BCS) and
Del Monte Foods' over its pet food business sale is being described by lawyers as leading to "sweeping change" in investment banking, but longtime industry watchers think it will be much harder to teach old Wall Street dogs new tricks.
On Thursday, a Delaware judge accepted an October settlement with Del Monte shareholders over a dispute arising from a buyout of the company's pet foods division in 2010. The deal finalizes an $89.4 million settlement brokered by the Delaware court that the two parties acted improperly in a sale of the business to a consortium of private equity investors led by
KKR(KKR - Get Report).
Some shareholders sued Del Monte and Barclays citing a potential conflict when the bank financed the debt needed for private equity investors to buy the California -based maker of Meow Mix and Milk Bone pet foods for $5.3 billion, while also advising the board on sale negotiations.
Earlier in the year, Delaware Chancery Court, Judge Travis Laster ruled in favor of plaintiffs citing Barclays' lack of disclosure, and Thursday ruled that the $89.4 million settlement "provides excellent consideration" to Del Monte shareholders, who will also get an additional 50 cents to the company's $19 a share buyout.
According to October filings with the
Securities and Exchanges Commission, Barclays Capital and Del Monte Foods will split a $89.4 million payment by sending $23.7 million and $65.7 million respectively to Del Monte Foods shareholders. Upon the settlement both companies denied all wrongdoing.
The settlement alone, at first glance, appears to have stopped Wall Street in its tracks in a still lucrative but conflict-prone activity, just as legislation like the
Dodd Frank Act cut at other often profitable revenue streams like proprietary trading.
Grant & Eisenhofer, the plaintiffs lawyers said on its Web site that "the lawsuit, which challenged the common practice by many deal advisers to simultaneously offer sell-side financing in a transaction, led to sweeping changes in the way investment banks conduct business in the M&A marketplace."
Nevertheless, deal watchers see that over time, Wall Street will return to its old habits, albeit reformed.
Calling the settlement "very unusual and significant in size," Jeffrey N. Gordon of Columbia Law School maintains of potential investment bank conflicts in providing financing and advice, "so long as this is disclosed to a sellers board and so long as an impartial fairness opinion is given, I think the practice [called staple financing] can be managed." The net result of the settlement may simply be better disclosure by investment banks in their M&A work, says Gordon.
About the settlement, John Coates of Harvard Law School asks, 'is it temporary attention, or will it change practices over a long period of time?" Since the Delaware court ruling hinged on Barclays' disclosure and not its actual investment banking practice, Coates believes in the former.
It signals that after a retreat in providing staple financing, investment banks may one day return to the practice when better able to manage potential conflicts.