Glencore could pay £300m if merger fails

£50bn deal with Xstrata at risk as investors call for better terms – but penalties would be high

Mark Leftly
Sunday 01 July 2012 12:43
Comments

The commodities trading giant Glencore will be forced to hand over nearly £300m to the FTSE 100 miner Xstrata, should it walk away from the £50bn merger as a result of shareholder pressure.

Advisers on both sides of the deal are also expected to lose well over £100m in fees, if Glencore boss Ivan Glasenberg decides to abandon the merger rather than sweeten its terms.

Mr Glasenberg has been determined to reunite the two companies for years, Glencore having spun off Xstrata as a collection of coal assets back in 2001. It still retains a one-third stake in the Switzerland-based group.

Last week Qatar Holdings became the latest and – with an 11 per cent shareholding – the most significant Xstrata investor to demand a premium on a deal that has been marketed as a "merger of equals".

Qatar is demanding 3.25 shares in the combined group for every one that Xstrata investors already hold, against the current offer of 2.8. Many Xstrata investors believe that such improvements are necessary as their company's prospects are arguably better.

After early talks between Glencore and Qatar over the impasse failed last week, there is a growing sense that a compromise might not be reached. Other significant shareholders, who are also angry that Xstrata's chief executive, Mick Davis, will receive a £28.8m retention bonus for just staying on as boss of the merged group for three years, are likely to join forces with Xstrata and vote down the proposal.

Mr Glasenberg has indicated he could walk away from the deal if shareholders show a lack of interest in paying for world-class executives while he is not likely to pay anywhere near as much as Qatar is demanding.

The terms of the merger prospectus state: "Glencore has agreed to pay Xstrata by way of compensation a fee in the amount of £298m … payable in the event that the Glencore board withdraws, amends, modifies or qualifies its recommendation of the merger or resolves or agrees to do the same so as to cause the merger not to proceed."

A source close to the negotiations said that he was still hopeful that a deal could be struck. He argued: "Glencore initiated the discussions with Xstrata, that was one of the main rationales of listing on the London Stock Exchange – to create a currency [shares] to do this merger. It's still in Glencore's best interests to get this deal done now."

Certainly, some of the world's biggest investment banks, such as Goldman Sachs, Citi, Morgan Stanley and Deutsche, are hoping the megamerger goes deal. Alongside public relations firms and lawyers on the deal, they are due to share a pot of around £125m should the deal succeed, but only about 10 per cent of that should it fail.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in