ASC 805-10-25-4 provides the principle with regard to identifying the acquirer.
ASC 805-10-25-4
For each business combination, one of the combining entities shall be identified as the acquirer.
Application of the above principle requires one of the parties in a business combination to be identified as the acquirer for accounting purposes. The process of identifying the acquirer begins with the determination of the party that obtains control based on the guidance in the consolidation standard (
ASC 810-10).
The general rule is the party that directly or indirectly holds greater than 50% of the voting shares has control. If a variable interest entity (VIE) that is a business is consolidated using the VIE subsections of
ASC 810-10, the party that consolidates the VIE (i.e., primary beneficiary) is identified as the acquirer. See
BCG 2.11 for further information.
ASC 805-10-55-11
In a business combination effected primarily by transferring cash or other assets or by incurring liabilities, the acquirer usually is the entity that transfers the cash or other assets or incurs the liabilities.
Excerpt from ASC 805-10-55-12
In a business combination effected primarily by exchanging equity interests, the acquirer usually is the entity that issues its equity interests.
It is sometimes not clear which party is the acquirer if a business combination is effected through the exchange of equity interests. The acquirer for accounting purposes may not be the legal acquirer (i.e., the entity that issues its equity interest to effect the business combination). Business combinations in which the legal acquirer is not the accounting acquirer are commonly referred to as “reverse acquisitions.” See
BCG 2.10 for further information. All pertinent facts and circumstances should be considered in determining the acquirer in a business combination that primarily involves the exchange of equity interests.
ASC 805-10-55-12 provides additional factors that should be considered when determining the acquirer in a business combination effected through the exchange of equity interests.
Excerpt from ASC 805-10-55-12
a. The relative voting rights in the combined entity after the business combination. The acquirer usually is the combining entity whose owners as a group retain or receive the largest portion of the voting rights in the combined entity. In determining which group of owners retains or receives the largest portion of voting rights, an entity shall consider the existence of any unusual or special voting arrangements and options, warrants, or convertible securities.
b. The existence of a large minority voting interest in the combined entity if no other owner or organized group of owners has a significant voting interest. The acquirer usually is the combining entity whose single owner or organized group of owners holds the largest minority voting interest in the combined entity.
c. The composition of the governing body of the combined entity. The acquirer usually is the combining entity whose owners have the ability to elect or appoint or to remove a majority of the members of the governing body of the combined entity.
d. The composition of the senior management of the combined entity. The acquirer usually is the combining entity whose former management dominates the management of the combined entity.
e. The terms of the exchange of equity interests. The acquirer usually is the combining entity that pays a premium over the precombination fair value of the equity interests of the other combining entity or entities.
The weight of relative voting rights in the combined entity after the business combination generally increases as the portion of the voting rights held by the majority becomes more significant (e.g., a split of 75% and 25% may be more determinative than a split of 51% and 49%). See below for additional information on the consideration of options, warrants, and convertible instruments when evaluating relative voting rights.
The existence of a party with a large minority voting interest may be a factor in determining the acquirer. For example, a newly combined entity’s ownership includes a single investor with a 40% ownership, while the remaining 60% ownership is held by a widely dispersed group. The single investor that owns the 40% ownership in the combined entity is considered a large minority voting interest.
Consideration should be given to the initial composition of the board and whether the composition of the board is subject to change within a short period of time after the acquisition date. Generally, we believe control of the board should allow the board to vote on substantive matters post-acquisition. Assessing the significance of this factor in the identification of the acquirer would include an understanding of which combining entity has the ability to impact the composition of the board. These include, among other things, the terms of the current members serving on the governing body, the process for replacing current members, and the committees or individuals that have a role in selecting new members for the governing body.
Consideration should be given to the number of executive positions, the roles and responsibilities associated with each position, and the existence and terms of any employment contracts. The seniority of the various management positions should be given greater weight over the actual number of senior management positions in the determination of the composition of senior management.
The terms of the exchange of equity interests are not limited to situations where the equity securities exchanged are traded in a public market. In situations where either or both securities are not publicly traded, the reliability of the fair value measure of the privately held equity securities should be considered prior to assessing whether an entity paid a premium over the precombination fair value of the other combining entity or entities.
Other factors to consider in determining the acquirer include:
- If one of the combining entities is significantly larger than the other combining entity or entities, it would typically be considered the accounting acquirer. When assessing relative size, a reporting entity may consider the combining entities’ assets, revenues, cash flows, or earnings measures that are most relevant, which may vary based on sector. Differences in accounting policies, entity capitalization, and the occurrence of nonrecurring items should also be considered when comparing the relative size of the combining entities.
- When identifying the acquirer, a reporting entity should consider which of the combining entities initiated the business combination.
- The combined entity’s name, location of its headquarters, and ticker symbol may also be considered.
- A newly formed entity (NewCo) that issues equity to effect the combination/merger of two or more existing businesses would generally not be the accounting acquirer (see Example BCG 2-3). One of the existing combining entities should be determined to be the acquirer utilizing the criteria described in ASC 805-10-55-12. However, a NewCo that transfers cash or other assets or that incurs liabilities as consideration may be deemed to be the accounting acquirer. See BCG 2.3.1 for further guidance on NewCos.
In addition to these factors, certain circumstances can complicate the identification of the acquirer, including the following:
- Acquisitions involving companies with overlapping shareholders. The effect of common ownership (but not common control) among the shareholders of the combining entities should be considered in the identification of the accounting acquirer. The analysis of the relative voting rights in a business combination involving entities with common shareholders should consider the former shareholder groups of the combining entities and not the individual owners that are common to the combining entities. The former shareholder group that retains or receives the largest portion of the voting rights in the combined entity would be the accounting acquirer, absent the consideration of any of the other factors provided in ASC 805.
- Options, warrants, and convertible instruments. Options, warrants, and convertible instruments assumed or exchanged in a business combination are considered in the determination of the accounting acquirer if the holders of these instruments are viewed to be essentially the same as common shareholders. Options, warrants, and convertible instruments that are in the money and are vested, exercisable, or convertible may be included in the determination of the relative voting rights in the combined entity. Options, warrants, and convertible instruments that are not vested, exercisable, or convertible until after the acquisition date generally should not be included in the assessment of relative voting rights. However, if the instruments become vested, exercisable, or convertible shortly after the acquisition date and it can be reasonable to assume those instruments will be converted, then the instruments should be included in the analysis.
- Debt holders that receive common shares. Debt holders that receive common shares in a business combination should be considered in the determination of the accounting acquirer if the debt holders are viewed to have attributes similar to common shareholders prior to the acquisition. The holders of debt that is exchanged for shares in a business combination may be included in the determination of the relative voting rights in the combined entity if the debt is convertible and in the money prior to the acquisition.
Example BCG 2-1 and Example BCG 2-2 illustrate the impact on the determination of relative voting rights in the combined entity if debt holders receive common shares in a business combination.
EXAMPLE BCG 2-1
Debt holders that exchange their interest for common shares that do not impact the determination of relative voting rights
Company A acquires Company B in a business combination by exchanging equity interests. Company B has nonconvertible debt that Company A does not wish to assume in the acquisition. Company A reaches an agreement with Company B’s nonconvertible debt holders to extinguish the debt for Company A’s common shares. The nonconvertible debt holders hold no other financial interests in Company B.
How do the shares issued to the nonconvertible debt holders impact the determination of relative voting rights?
Analysis
The extinguishment of the debt is a separate transaction from the business combination. The determination of relative voting rights in the combined entity would not include the equity interests received by Company B’s nonconvertible debt holders. Prior to the business combination, Company B’s nonconvertible debt holders do not have attributes similar to other shareholders. The debt holders have no voting rights and have a different economic interest in Company B compared to Company B’s shareholders before the business combination.
EXAMPLE BCG 2-2
Debt holders that exchange their interest for common shares that impact the determination of relative voting rights
Company A acquires Company B in a business combination by exchanging equity interests. Company B has convertible debt. The conversion feature is “deep in the money” and the underlying fair value of the convertible debt is primarily based on the common shares into which the debt may be converted. Company A does not wish to assume the convertible debt in the acquisition. Company A reaches an agreement with Company B’s convertible debt holders to exchange the convertible debt for Company A’s common shares.
How do the shares issued to the convertible debt holders impact the determination of relative voting rights?
Analysis
The determination of relative voting rights in the combined entity would include the equity interests received by Company B’s convertible debt holders. Prior to the business combination, these debt holders have attributes similar to common shareholders. The debt holders have voting rights that can be exercised by converting the debt into common shares, and the underlying fair value of the debt is primarily based on the common shares into which the debt may be converted. This would indicate that the convertible debt holders have a similar economic interest in Company B compared to Company B’s common shareholders prior to the business combination.