Use these links to rapidly review the document
TABLE OF CONTENTS
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
Proxy
Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No. )
Filed by the Registrant ý | ||
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant o |
||
Check the appropriate box: |
||
o |
Preliminary Proxy Statement |
|
o |
Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) |
|
ý |
Definitive Proxy Statement |
|
o |
Definitive Additional Materials |
|
o |
Soliciting Material under §240.14a-12 |
Kinder Morgan, Inc. | ||||
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter) |
||||
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant) |
||||
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box): |
||||
ý |
No fee required. |
|||
o |
Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. |
|||
(1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: |
|||
(2) | Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: |
|||
(3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): |
|||
(4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: |
|||
(5) | Total fee paid: |
|||
o |
Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. |
|||
o |
Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. |
|||
(1) |
Amount Previously Paid: |
|||
(2) | Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: |
|||
(3) | Filing Party: |
|||
(4) | Date Filed: |
October 22, 2014
Dear Kinder Morgan, Inc. Stockholder:
On August 9, 2014, we entered into three separate merger agreements with Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., which is referred to as "KMP," Kinder Morgan Management, LLC, which is referred to as "KMR" and El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P., which is referred to as "EPB," pursuant to which Kinder Morgan, Inc., which is referred to as "KMI," will acquire directly or indirectly all of the outstanding equity interests in KMP, KMR and EPB that KMI and its subsidiaries do not already own.
If the mergers are completed, all the outstanding KMR shares not owned by us or our subsidiaries, which we refer to as "publicly held," will be converted into the right to receive shares of our Class P common stock, which we refer to as our "common stock," and all outstanding publicly held KMP and EPB common units will be converted into the right to receive, at the election of each unitholder but subject to proration, shares of our common stock, cash or a combination of the two. Based on the number of publicly held KMP and EPB common units and KMR shares outstanding as of October 20, 2014, we estimate that we would issue a total of approximately 1,096 million shares of our common stock in these mergers.
Our certificate of incorporation currently authorizes us to issue up to 2,000,000,000 shares of our common stock. As of October 20, 2014, we had approximately 1,028 million shares of our common stock outstanding. We also had approximately 325 million shares of our common stock reserved for issuance for various purposes, including the exercise of outstanding warrants and the issuance of stock under our employee benefit plans. As a result, in order to complete the mergers, we will need to amend our certificate of incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of our common stock.
Additionally, the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, upon which our common stock is listed, require us to obtain the approval of our stockholders when we will issue more than 20% of our outstanding common stock in transactions like the mergers.
Therefore, we are holding a special meeting of stockholders on Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 9:00 a.m., local time, at the Kinder Morgan Building, 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002 to obtain your vote to approve (1) the amendment of our certificate of incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of our common stock and (2) our issuance of our common stock in the mergers. Your vote is very important, regardless of the number of shares you own. The mergers cannot be completed unless our stockholders approve both proposals at the special meeting.
The KMI board of directors unanimously determined that the merger agreements and the transactions contemplated by the merger agreements are advisable and in the best interests of KMI stockholders, and the KMI directors unanimously voted to approve the merger agreements and the transactions contemplated by the merger agreements. The KMI board of directors recommends that KMI stockholders vote FOR approval of the amendment to our certificate of incorporation, FOR the issuance of our common stock in the mergers, and FOR adjournment of the special meeting if necessary to solicit additional proxies if there are not sufficient votes to approve the other proposals at the time of the special meeting.
On behalf of our board of directors, I invite you to attend the special meeting. Whether or not you expect to attend the special meeting in person, we urge you to submit your proxy as promptly as possible through one of the delivery methods described in the accompanying proxy statement.
In addition, we urge you to read carefully the accompanying proxy statement (and the documents incorporated by reference into it) which includes important information about the merger agreements,
the proposed mergers, KMP, KMR, EPB, us and the special meeting. Please pay particular attention to the section titled "Risk Factors" beginning on page 89 of the accompanying proxy statement.
On behalf of the board of directors, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely, | ||
Richard D. Kinder Chairman of the Board |
The accompanying proxy statement is dated October 22, 2014 and is first being mailed to Kinder Morgan, Inc. stockholders on or about October 22, 2014.
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77002
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
To the Stockholders of Kinder Morgan, Inc.:
Notice is hereby given that a special meeting of stockholders of Kinder Morgan, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which we sometimes refer to as "KMI," will be held on Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 9:00 a.m., local time, at the Kinder Morgan Building, 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002 solely for the following purposes:
These items of business are described in detail in the accompanying proxy statement.
The board of directors recommends that KMI stockholders vote FOR the charter amendment proposal, FOR the stock issuance proposal and FOR the adjournment proposal.
Only stockholders of record as of the close of business on October 20, 2014 are entitled to notice of the special meeting and to vote at the special meeting or at any adjournment or postponement thereof. A list of stockholders entitled to vote at the special meeting will be available in our offices located at 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas, during regular business hours for a period of ten days before the special meeting, and at the place of the special meeting during the meeting.
We cannot complete the KMP, KMR and EPB mergers unless our stockholders approve the charter amendment proposal and the stock issuance proposal. The charter amendment proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock. Your failure to vote your shares will have the same effect as a vote "against" the charter amendment proposal. The stock issuance proposal requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of our common stock present in person or represented by proxy at the special meeting. Therefore, your vote is very important.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU EXPECT TO ATTEND THE SPECIAL MEETING IN PERSON, WE URGE YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR PROXY AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE (1) THROUGH THE INTERNET, (2) BY TELEPHONE OR (3) BY MARKING, SIGNING AND DATING THE ENCLOSED PROXY CARD AND RETURNING IT IN THE POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE PROVIDED. You may revoke your proxy or change your vote at any time by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on the day before the special meeting. If your shares of our common stock are held in the name of a bank, broker, nominee,
trust company or other fiduciary, please follow the instructions on the voting instruction card furnished to you by them.
We urge you to read carefully the accompanying proxy statement, including all documents incorporated by reference into it, and its annexes before voting your shares at the special meeting or submitting your voting instructions by proxy.
IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THE SPECIAL MEETING:
Please note that space limitations make it necessary to limit attendance to KMI stockholders or their duly appointed proxies. Admission to the special meeting will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration will begin at 8:00 a.m., and seating will begin at 8:45 a.m. Stockholders and proxies will be asked to present valid picture identification, such as a driver's license or passport. Stockholders holding shares in brokerage accounts will also need to bring a copy of the voting instruction card that they receive from their broker or other nominee in connection with the special meeting or a brokerage statement reflecting stock ownership as of the record date. Cameras, recording devices and other electronic devices will not be permitted at the meeting.
By order of the board of directors, | ||
Richard D. Kinder Chairman of the Board |
Houston,
Texas
October 22, 2014
This document is included in a registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC by KMI (File No. 333-198411) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, which is referred to as the "Securities Act". It constitutes a notice of meeting and proxy statement of KMI under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which is referred to as the "Exchange Act", with respect to a special meeting of KMI stockholders at which those stockholders will be asked to vote on proposals to amend our certificate of incorporation to increase the authorized number of shares of our common stock so that we will have sufficient authorized shares to issue in our proposed mergers with KMP, KMR and EPB, and to approve the issuance of our common stock in those mergers. The registration statement also includes proxy statement/prospectuses with respect to KMP, KMR and EPB, which constitute prospectuses of KMI under Section 5 of the Securities Act with respect to our common stock to be issued pursuant to the merger agreements, and notices of meeting and proxy statements of each of KMP, KMR and EPB under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act with respect to their special meetings at which their unitholders or shareholders will vote on proposals to approve those mergers and other matters.
You should rely only on the information contained in or incorporated by reference into this proxy statement. No one has been authorized to provide you with information that is different from that contained in, or incorporated by reference into, this proxy statement. This proxy statement is dated October 22, 2014. The information contained in this proxy statement is accurate only as of that date or, in the case of information in a document incorporated by reference, as of the date of such document, unless the information specifically indicates that another date applies. Neither the delivery of this proxy statement to KMI stockholders nor the issuance by us of our common stock pursuant to the merger agreements will create any implication to the contrary.
This proxy statement does not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities, or the solicitation of a proxy, in any jurisdiction in which or from any person to whom it is unlawful to make any such offer or solicitation in such jurisdiction.
i
ii
iii
iv
The following summary, together with "Questions and Answers about the Special Meeting and the Proposals," highlights selected information contained in this proxy statement. It may not contain all of the information that may be important in your consideration of the proposals to be voted on at the KMI special meeting. To understand more fully the Transactions (as defined below) and the proposals, we encourage you to read carefully this proxy statement, its annexes and the documents we have incorporated by reference into this proxy statement before voting. See "Where You Can Find More Information" and "Incorporation by Reference" on page 166. Where appropriate, we have set forth a section and page reference directing you to a more complete description of the topics described in this summary.
1
See "The TransactionsSummary of the Transactions" beginning on page 31 and "Description of the Debt Financing for the Transactions" beginning on page 159.
KMP is a Delaware limited partnership with its common units traded on the NYSE under the symbol "KMP." KMP is one of the largest publicly-traded pipeline limited partnerships in the United States in terms of market capitalization.
2
KMR is a Delaware limited liability company with its listed shares traded on the NYSE under the symbol "KMR." The outstanding KMR voting shares (the only shares that vote for the election of KMR's directors) are owned by KMGP, the general partner of KMP. KMR is a limited partner in KMP, owning all of KMP's i-units. KMGP has delegated to KMR, to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and KMP's partnership agreement, all of its rights and powers to manage and control the business and affairs of KMP and its operating limited partnerships, subject to KMGP's right to approve specified actions.
EPB is a Delaware limited partnership that owns and operates natural gas transportation pipelines, storage and other midstream assets. EPB's common units trade on the NYSE under the symbol "EPB." EPGP is EPB's general partner.
Each of P Merger Sub LLC, R Merger Sub LLC and E Merger Sub LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of KMI that was formed solely in contemplation of the Transactions.
See "The Parties to the Transactions" beginning on page 97.
We directly and indirectly own approximately 43 million units of KMP. These units, which consist of approximately 22 million common units, 5 million Class B units and 16 million i-units (corresponding to the number of KMR shares owned by us), represent approximately 10% of the total outstanding limited partner interests of KMP. We also indirectly own all of the common stock of KMGP, the general partner of KMP, which owns an effective 2% interest in KMP and its operating partnerships and the right to receive incentive distributions from KMP pursuant to KMP's partnership agreement. Together, these limited partner and general partner interests represent approximately 12% of KMP's total equity interests and an approximate 50% economic interest in KMP, as a result of the incentive distributions.
KMGP has delegated to KMR, subject to limited exceptions, all of KMGP's rights and power to manage the business and affairs of KMP and its operating limited partnerships. KMR owns all of KMP's i-units. KMI directly or indirectly owns approximately 16 million KMR listed shares, representing approximately 13% of KMR's outstanding shares, and KMGP owns all of KMR's voting shares.
We indirectly own all of the membership interests in EPGP, the general partner of EPB, as well as approximately 40% of the outstanding common units of EPB and all of EPB's incentive distribution rights.
Certain of our executive officers and directors are also executive officers and directors of EPGP, KMGP and KMR. Richard D. Kinder and Steven J. Kean serve as members of the boards of directors of all four companies.
See "The TransactionsRelationship of the Parties to the Transactions" beginning on page 55.
3
remain outstanding) will be converted into the right to receive, at the election of the holder, but subject to proration, one of the following:
Any election by a holder of KMP common units or EPB common units to receive the applicable cash consideration or the applicable stock consideration will be subject to proration to ensure that the aggregate amount of cash paid and the aggregate number of shares of KMI common stock issued in the KMP merger or the EPB merger, as applicable, is the same as would be paid and issued if each KMP common unit or EPB common unit had been converted into the right to receive the applicable mixed consideration.
We will not issue any fractional shares of our common stock in any of the mergers. Instead, each holder of KMP common units, KMR shares or EPB common units who otherwise would have received a fractional share of our common stock in the applicable merger will be entitled to receive, from the exchange agent appointed by us pursuant to the KMP merger agreement, the KMR merger agreement or the EPB merger agreement, as applicable, a cash payment, without interest, in lieu of such fractional share representing such holder's proportionate interest, if any, in the proceeds from the sale by the exchange agent (reduced by reasonable and customary fees of the exchange agent attributable to such sale) in one or more transactions of the number of excess shares of our common stock represented by the aggregate amount of fractional shares of our common stock that would otherwise be issuable pursuant to the applicable merger agreement.
For more detail about these interests, see "The TransactionsInterests of Certain Persons in the Transactions" beginning on page 83.
4
Our board of directors was aware of these interests and considered them, among other matters, prior to providing its recommendations with respect to the proposals.
Even if the stock issuance proposal is approved by our stockholders, our shares will not be issued in the Transactions unless all three mergers are completed.
The full text of Barclays Capital's written opinion, which is attached to this proxy statement as Annex D, sets forth the assumptions made, procedures followed, factors considered and limitations on the review undertaken by Barclays Capital in rendering its opinion. You should read the opinion carefully and in its entirety. Barclays Capital's opinion was provided for the information of KMI's board of directors in connection with its evaluation of the Transactions Consideration from a financial point of view and did not address any other aspects or implications of the Transactions. Barclays Capital expressed no view as to, and its opinion does not address, KMI's underlying business decision to proceed with or effect any or all of the Transactions, the likelihood of
5
consummation of any or all of the Transactions or the relative merits of any or all of the Transactions as compared to any strategic alternatives that may be available to KMI (including pursuing any of the Transactions individually). The summary of Barclays Capital's opinion provided in this proxy statement is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full opinion. Barclays Capital's opinion is not intended to be and does not constitute a recommendation to any KMI stockholder as to how such KMI stockholder should vote or act with respect to the Transactions or any other matter. See "The TransactionsOpinion of Barclays Capital Inc." beginning on page 60.
KMP
As more fully described in this proxy statement and in the KMP merger agreement, each of KMI's and KMP's obligation to complete the KMP merger depends on a number of conditions being satisfied or, where legally permissible, waived, including the following:
6
agreement and the EPB merger agreement) and the parties thereto must be ready, willing and able to consummate the KMR merger and the EPB merger, and the KMR merger and the EPB merger must be consummated substantially concurrently with the KMP merger such that the KMR merger must be consummated first, followed by the KMP merger and then the EPB merger; and
The obligations of KMI and P Merger Sub LLC to effect the KMP merger are subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the following additional conditions:
The obligation of KMP to effect the KMP merger is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the following additional conditions:
KMR
As more fully described in this proxy statement and in the KMR merger agreement, each of KMI's and KMR's obligation to complete the KMR merger depends on a number of conditions being satisfied or, where legally permissible, waived, including the following:
7
The obligations of KMI and R Merger Sub LLC to effect the KMR merger are subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the following additional conditions:
The obligation of KMR to effect the KMR merger is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the following additional conditions:
8
EPB
As more fully described in this proxy statement and in the EPB merger agreement, each of EPB's and KMI's obligation to complete the EPB merger depends on a number of conditions being satisfied or, where legally permissible, waived, including the following:
The obligations of KMI and E Merger Sub LLC to effect the EPB merger are subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the following additional conditions:
9
The obligation of EPB to effect the EPB merger is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the following additional conditions:
KMP
KMP Adverse Recommendation Change. The KMP merger agreement provides that KMP will not, through the KMR board, the KMGP conflicts committee or the KMGP board, make a KMP adverse recommendation change (as defined under "The KMP Merger AgreementKMP Recommendation and KMGP Adverse Recommendation Change").
Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other term in the KMP merger agreement to the contrary, subject to certain conditions (more fully described in "The KMP Merger AgreementKMGP Recommendation and KMP Adverse Recommendation Change"), the KMR board, the KMGP conflicts committee or the KMGP board may, at any time prior to obtaining the approval of the KMP merger agreement by the KMP unitholders, make a KMP adverse recommendation change in response to a KMP intervening event or a KMP superior proposal, if any of them makes a good faith determination that the failure to change its recommendation would not be in the best interests of KMP, after determining that it would not be in the best interests of the unaffiliated KMP unitholders.
See "The KMP Merger AgreementKMGP Recommendation and KMP Adverse Recommendation Change" beginning on page 107 for more detailed information.
KMI Adverse Recommendation Change. The KMP merger agreement provides that KMI will not, through the KMI board of directors, make a KMI adverse recommendation change (as defined under "The KMP Merger AgreementKMI Recommendation and KMI Adverse Recommendation Change").
Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other term in the KMP merger agreement to the contrary, subject to certain conditions (more fully described in "The KMP Merger AgreementKMI Recommendation and KMI Adverse Recommendation Change"), the KMI board may, at any time prior to KMI's stockholders approving the stock issuance proposal and charter amendment proposal, make a KMI adverse recommendation change in response to a KMI intervening event or a KMI superior proposal, if the KMI board makes a good faith determination that the failure to change its recommendation would be inconsistent with its fiduciary duties to KMI stockholders under applicable law.
See "The KMP Merger AgreementKMI Recommendation and KMI Adverse Recommendation Change" beginning on page 109 for more detailed information.
10
KMR
KMR Adverse Recommendation Change. The KMR merger agreement provides that KMR will not, through the KMR special committee or the KMR board, make a KMR adverse recommendation change (as defined under "The KMR Merger AgreementKMR Recommendation and KMR Adverse Recommendation Change").
Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other term in the KMR merger agreement to the contrary, subject to certain conditions (more fully described in "The KMR Merger AgreementKMR Recommendation and KMR Adverse Recommendation Change"), the KMR board or the KMR special committee may, at any time prior to obtaining the approval of the KMR merger agreement by the KMR shareholders, make a KMR adverse recommendation change in response to a KMR intervening event or a KMR superior proposal, if either of them makes a good faith determination that the failure to change its recommendation would not be in the best interests of KMR, after determining that it would not be in the best interests of the unaffiliated KMR shareholders.
See "The KMR Merger AgreementKMR Recommendation and KMR Adverse Recommendation Change" beginning on page 127 for more detailed information
KMI Adverse Recommendation Change. The KMR merger agreement provides that KMI will not, through the KMI board of directors, make a KMI adverse recommendation change (as defined under "The KMR Merger AgreementKMI Recommendation and KMI Adverse Recommendation Change").
Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other term in the KMR merger agreement to the contrary, subject to certain conditions (more fully described in "The KMR Merger AgreementKMI Recommendation and KMI Adverse Recommendation Change"), the KMI board may, at any time prior to KMI's stockholders approving the stock issuance proposal and charter amendment proposal, make a KMI adverse recommendation change in response to a KMI intervening event or a KMI superior proposal, if the KMI board makes a good faith determination that the failure to change its recommendation would be inconsistent with its fiduciary duties to KMI stockholders under applicable law.
See "The KMR Merger AgreementKMI Recommendation and KMI Adverse Recommendation Change" beginning on page 129 for more detailed information.
EPB
EPGP Adverse Recommendation Change. The EPB merger agreement provides that EPB and EPGP will not, and will cause their respective subsidiaries and use their commercially reasonable best efforts to cause their respective representatives not to, directly or indirectly, make an EPB adverse recommendation change (as defined under "The EPB Merger AgreementEPB Recommendation and EPB Adverse Recommendation Change").
Notwithstanding the terms above or any other term in the EPB merger agreement to the contrary, the EPGP conflicts committee and the EPGP board, as applicable, may make an EPB adverse recommendation change, at any time prior to obtaining the approval of the EPB merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby by the EPB unitholders, if the EPGP board or the EPGP conflicts committee, as applicable, determines in good faith (after consultation with its financial advisor and outside legal counsel) that the failure to take such action would be inconsistent with the best interests of EPB; provided that, neither the EPGP conflicts committee nor the EPGP board may effect an EPB adverse recommendation change pursuant to the foregoing unless:
11
the certain time periods (as set forth under "The EPB Merger AgreementEPB Recommendation and EPB Adverse Recommendation Change");
Any EPB adverse recommendation change made by the EPGP conflicts committee invalidates and rescinds any prior "Special Approval" of the EPB merger agreement and the EPB merger.
See "The EPB Merger AgreementEPGP Recommendation and EPB Adverse Recommendation Change" beginning on page 145 for more detailed information.
KMI Adverse Recommendation Change. The EPB merger agreement provides that KMI will not, through the KMI board of directors, make a KMI adverse recommendation change (as defined under "The EPB Merger AgreementKMI Board Approval and KMI Adverse Recommendation Change").
Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other term in the EPB merger agreement to the contrary, subject to certain conditions (more fully described in "The EPB Merger AgreementKMI Recommendation and KMI Adverse Recommendation Change"), the KMI board may, if the KMI board makes a good faith determination that the failure to change its recommendation would be inconsistent with its fiduciary duties to stockholders under applicable law, make a KMI adverse recommendation change.
See "The EPB Merger AgreementKMI Recommendation and KMI Adverse Recommendation Change" beginning on page 147 for more detailed information.
12
Justice, which is referred to as the "Antitrust Division", and the United States Federal Trade Commission, which is referred to as the "FTC", and all statutory waiting period requirements under the HSR Act have been satisfied. On August 15, 2014, KMI and KMP filed HSR Act Notification and Report Forms, which are referred to as the "HSR Forms," with the Antitrust Division and the FTC. The Antitrust Division and the FTC granted early termination of the applicable waiting period under the HSR Act on August 22, 2014.
We are not aware of any other material regulatory approvals that must be received or filings that must be made in order to consummate the Transactions.
KMP
KMI and KMP may terminate the KMP merger agreement at any time prior to the effective time of the KMP merger by mutual written consent authorized by our board of directors and the KMGP conflicts committee.
In addition, either KMI or KMP may terminate the KMP merger agreement at any time prior to the effective time of the KMP merger by written notice to the other party if:
KMI also may terminate the KMP merger agreement if a KMP adverse recommendation change occurs or KMP, KMR or KMGP materially breaches or fails to perform any of its representations, warranties, covenants or agreements such that certain closing conditions would not be satisfied, or if such breach or failure is capable of being cured, such breach or failure has not been cured within 30 days following delivery of written notice by KMI and KMI is not then in any material breach.
KMP also may terminate the KMP merger agreement if a KMI adverse recommendation change occurs or KMI materially breaches or fails to perform any of its representations, warranties, covenants or agreements such that certain closing conditions would not be satisfied, or if such breach or failure is capable of being cured, such breach or failure has not been cured within 30 days following delivery of written notice by KMP and none of KMP, KMR or KMP is then in any material breach.
13
KMR
KMI and KMR may terminate the KMR merger agreement at any time prior to the effective time of the KMR merger by mutual written consent authorized by our board of directors and the KMR special committee.
In addition, either KMI or KMR may terminate the KMR merger agreement at any time prior to the effective time by written notice to the other party if:
KMI also may terminate the KMR merger agreement if a KMR adverse recommendation change occurs or KMR materially breaches or fails to perform any of its representations, warranties, covenants or agreements such that certain closing conditions would not be satisfied, or if such breach or failure is capable of being cured, such breach or failure has not been cured within 30 days following delivery of written notice by KMI and KMI is not then in any material breach.
KMR also may terminate the KMR merger agreement if a KMI adverse recommendation change occurs or KMI materially breaches or fails to perform any of its representations, warranties, covenants or agreements such that certain closing conditions would not be satisfied, or if such breach or failure is capable of being cured, such breach or failure has not been cured within 30 days following delivery of written notice by KMR and KMR is not then in any material breach.
EPB
KMI and EPB may terminate the EPB merger agreement at any time prior to effective time of the EPB merger by mutual written consent authorized by the KMI board of directors and the EPGP conflicts committee.
In addition, either KMI or EPB may terminate the EPB merger agreement at any time prior to the effective time of the EPB merger by written notice to the other party if:
14
certain exceptions discussed in "The EPB Merger AgreementTermination" beginning on page 152;
KMI also may terminate the EPB merger agreement if an EPB adverse recommendation change occurs or EPB or EPGP materially breaches or fails to perform any of its representations, warranties, covenants or agreements such that certain closing conditions would not be satisfied, or if such breach or failure is capable of being cured, such breach or failure has not been cured within 30 days following delivery of written notice by KMI and KMI is not then in any material breach.
EPB also may terminate the EPB merger agreement if a KMI adverse recommendation change occurs or KMI materially breaches or fails to perform any of its representations, warranties, covenants or agreements such that certain closing conditions would not be satisfied, or if such breach or failure is capable of being cured, such breach or failure has not been cured within 30 days following delivery of written notice by EPB and neither of EPB or EPGP is then in any material breach.
Following the termination of the KMP merger agreement under specified circumstances, KMI may be required to pay KMP a termination fee of $817 million and, under other specified circumstances, KMP may be required to pay KMI a termination fee of $817 million in cash. In the event KMI is required to pay KMP a termination fee, such termination fee will be payable through an irrevocable waiver of a portion of KMGP's incentive distributions over a period of eight calendar quarters.
Following the termination of the KMR merger agreement under specified circumstances, KMI may be required to pay KMR a termination fee of $311 million in cash and, under other specified circumstances, KMR may be required to pay KMI a termination fee of $311 million in cash.
15
agreement, merger agreement, letter of intent, agreement in principle, unit purchase agreement, asset purchase agreement or unit exchange agreement, option agreement or other similar agreement relating to an alternative proposal.
The merger agreements require that KMP, KMGP, KMR, EPGP and EPB, as applicable, will, and will cause their respective subsidiaries, and will use specified efforts to cause their respective representatives to, cease and cause to be terminated any discussions or negotiations with any persons conducted prior to the execution of the KMP merger agreement, the KMR merger agreement or the EPB merger agreement, as applicable, with respect to an alternative proposal and immediately terminate any access by any person (other than KMI and its representatives) to confidential information relating to a possible alternative proposal.
The KMP and KMR merger agreement also have "no solicitation" provisions that apply to KMI.
KMP
Notwithstanding the restrictions above, the KMP merger agreement provides that, under specified circumstances at any time prior to obtaining the approval of KMP's unitholders of the KMP merger agreement, if KMP has received a written KMP alternative proposal that the KMGP conflicts committee believes is bona fide and the KMGP conflicts committee, after consultation with its financial advisors and outside legal counsel, determines in good faith that such alternative proposal constitutes or could reasonably be expected to lead to or result in a superior proposal and such KMP alternative proposal does not result from a material breach of the non-solicitation provisions in the KMP merger agreement (as described in "The KMP Merger AgreementNo Solicitation by KMP" beginning on page 111), then KMP, KMGP and KMR may:
KMP, KMGP and KMR also have agreed in the KMP merger agreement that they (i) will promptly, and in any event within 24 hours after receipt, advise KMI, orally and in writing, if any proposal, offer or inquiry is received by, any information is requested (other than requests for information in the ordinary course of business) from, or any discussions or negotiations are sought to be initiated with them in respect of any KMP alternative proposal, indicate the identity of the person making any such alternative proposal, offer or inquiry and (ii) will provide KMI the terms and conditions of any such alternative proposal, request or inquiry (including providing KMI with copies of any written materials received from or on behalf of such person making such proposal, offer or inquiry). In addition, KMP, KMGP and KMR have agreed to promptly keep KMI reasonably informed of all material developments affecting the status and terms of any such proposals, offers, inquiries or requests (and promptly, and in any event within 24 hours, provide KMI with copies of any additional written materials received by KMP, KMGP or KMR or that KMP, KMGP or KMR has delivered to any third party making a KMP alternative proposal that relate to such proposals, offers, inquiries or requests) and the status of any such discussions or negotiations.
KMR
Notwithstanding the restrictions above, the KMR merger agreement provides that, under specified circumstances at any time prior to obtaining the approval of KMR's shareholders of the KMR merger agreement, if KMR has received a written KMR alternative proposal that the KMR special committee believes is bona fide and the KMR special committee, after consultation with its financial advisors and outside legal counsel, determines in good faith that such KMR alternative proposal constitutes or could reasonably be expected to lead to or result in a KMR superior proposal and
16
such KMR alternative proposal does not result from a material breach of the non-solicitation provisions in the KMR merger agreement (as described in "The KMR MergerNo Solicitation by KMR" beginning on page 131), then KMR may:
KMR has also agreed in the KMR merger agreement that it (i) will promptly, and in any event within 24 hours after receipt, advise KMI, orally and in writing, if any proposal, offer or inquiry is received by, any information is requested (other than requests for information in the ordinary course of business) from, or any discussions or negotiations are sought to be initiated with them in respect of any KMR alternative proposal and indicate the identity of the person making any such KMR alternative proposal, offer or inquiry and (ii) will provide KMI the terms and conditions of any such KMR alternative proposal, request or inquiry (including providing KMI with copies of any written materials received from or on behalf of such person making such proposal, offer or inquiry). In addition, KMR has agreed to promptly keep KMI reasonably informed of all material developments affecting the status and terms of any such proposals, offers, inquiries or requests (and promptly, and in any event within 24 hours, provide KMI with copies of any additional written materials received by KMR or that KMR has delivered to any third party making an KMR alternative proposal that relate to such proposals, offers, inquiries or requests) and the status of any such discussions or negotiations.
EPB
Notwithstanding the restrictions above, the EPB merger agreement provides that, under specified circumstances at any time prior to obtaining the approval of EPB's unitholders of the EPB merger agreement, if EPB has received a written alternative proposal that the EPGP board believes is bona fide and the EPGP board, after consultation with its financial advisors and outside legal counsel, determines in good faith that such alternative proposal constitutes or could reasonably be expected to lead to or result in a superior proposal and such EPB alternative proposal does not result from a material breach of the non-solicitation provisions in the EPB merger agreement (as described in "The EPB MergerNo Solicitation by EPB" beginning on page 148), then EPGP and EPB may:
EPB and EPGP also have agreed in the EPB merger agreement that they will (i) promptly, and in any event within 24 hours after receipt, advise KMI, orally and in writing, if any proposal, offer or inquiry is received by, any information is requested from, or any discussions or negotiations are sought to be initiated with them in respect of any alternative proposal and indicate the identity of the person making any such alternative proposal, offer or inquiry and (ii) provide KMI the terms and conditions of any such alternative proposal, request or inquiry (including providing KMI with copies of any written materials received from or on behalf of such person making such proposal, offer or inquiry). In addition, EPB and EPGP have agreed to promptly keep KMI reasonably informed of all material developments affecting the status and terms of any such proposals, offers, inquiries or requests (and promptly, and in any event within 24 hours, provide KMI with copies of any additional written materials received by EPB or EPGP or that EPB or EPGP has delivered to any third party making an alternative proposal that relate to such proposals, offers, inquiries or requests) and the status of any such discussions or negotiations.
17
KMI
Each of the KMP merger agreement and the KMR merger agreement contains detailed provisions prohibiting KMI from seeking a KMI alternative proposal to the KMP merger agreement and the KMR merger agreement, respectively. Under these "no solicitation" provisions, KMI has agreed that it will not, and it will cause its subsidiaries and use reasonable best efforts to cause their respective representatives not to, directly or indirectly, except as permitted by the KMP merger agreement or the KMR merger agreement, as applicable:
Under each such merger agreement, KMI has agreed that it will, and will cause its subsidiaries and use reasonable best efforts to cause their respective representatives to, immediately cease and cause to be terminated any discussions or negotiations with any person with respect to a KMI alternative proposal, request the return or destruction of all confidential information previously provided to such parties and prohibit any access to any confidential information relating to a possible KMI alternative proposal.
Notwithstanding the restrictions above, each of the KMP merger agreement and the KMR merger agreement provides that, under specified circumstances at any time prior to obtaining the approval of KMI's stockholders of the stock issuance proposal and the charter amendment proposal, if KMI has received a written KMI alternative proposal that the KMI board believes is bona fide and the KMI board, after consultation with its financial advisors and outside legal counsel, determines in good faith that such KMI alternative proposal constitutes or could reasonably be expected to lead to or result in a KMI superior proposal and such KMI alternative proposal does not result from a material breach of the non-solicitation provisions in the KMP merger agreement or the KMR merger agreement, as applicable, then KMI may:
KMI also has agreed in each of the KMP merger agreement and the KMR merger agreement that it (i) will promptly, and in any event within 24 hours after receipt, advise specified parties, orally and in writing, if any proposal offer or inquiry is received by, any information is requested (other than requests for information in the ordinary course of business) from, or any discussions or negotiations are sought to be initiated with it in respect of any KMI alternative proposal and, indicate the identity of the person making any such alternative proposal, offer or inquiry and (ii) will provide specified parties the terms and conditions of any such alternative proposal, request or inquiry (including providing specified parties with copies of any written materials received from or on behalf of such person making such proposal, offer or inquiry). In addition, KMI has agreed to promptly keep specified parties reasonably informed of all material developments affecting the status and terms of any such proposals, offers, inquiries or requests (and promptly, in any event within 24 hours, provide specified parties with copies of any additional written materials received by KMI or that KMI has delivered to any third party making a KMI alternative proposal that relate to such proposals, offers, inquiries or requests) and the status of any such discussions or negotiations.
18
19
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2014 | 2013 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||||
|
(Unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
(in millions, except per share information) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Income and Cash Flow Data: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Revenues |
$ | 7,984 | $ | 6,442 | $ | 14,070 | $ | 9,973 | $ | 7,943 | $ | 7,852 | $ | 6,879 | ||||||||
Operating income |
2,160 | 1,789 | 3,990 | 2,593 | 1,423 | 1,133 | 1,257 | |||||||||||||||
Earnings (loss) from equity investments |
199 | 194 | 327 | 153 | 226 | (274 | ) | 123 | ||||||||||||||
Income from continuing operations |
1,098 | 1,439 | 2,696 | 1,204 | 449 | 64 | 523 | |||||||||||||||
(Loss) income from discontinued operations, net of tax |
| (2 | ) | (4 | ) | (777 | ) | 211 | 236 | 250 | ||||||||||||
Net income |
1,098 | 1,437 | 2,692 | 427 | 660 | 300 | 773 | |||||||||||||||
Net income (loss) attributable to KMI |
571 | 569 | 1,193 | 315 | 594 | (41 | ) | 495 | ||||||||||||||
Class P shares: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Basic and diluted earnings per common share from continuing operations |
$ | 0.55 | $ | 0.55 | $ | 1.15 | $ | 0.56 | $ | 0.70 | ||||||||||||
Basic and diluted (loss) earnings per common share from discontinued operations |
| | | (0.21 | ) | 0.04 | ||||||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total basic and diluted earnings per common share |
$ | 0.55 | $ | 0.55 | $ | 1.15 | $ | 0.35 | $ | 0.74 | ||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class A shares: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Basic and diluted earnings per common share from continuing operations |
$ | 0.47 | $ | 0.64 | ||||||||||||||||||
Basic and diluted (loss) earnings per common share from discontinued operations |
(0.21 | ) | 0.04 | |||||||||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total basic and diluted earnings per common share |
$ | 0.26 | $ | 0.68 | ||||||||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic weighted-average number of shares outstanding |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Class P shares |
1,028 | 1,036 | 1,036 | 461 | 118 | |||||||||||||||||
Class A shares |
446 | 589 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Diluted weighted-average number of shares outstanding |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Class P shares |
1,028 | 1,038 | 1,036 | 908 | 708 | |||||||||||||||||
Class A shares |
446 | 589 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Dividends per common share declared for the period(a) |
$ | 0.85 | $ | 0.78 | $ | 1.60 | $ | 1.40 | $ | 1.05 | ||||||||||||
Dividends per common share paid in the period(a) |
0.83 | 0.75 | 1.56 | 1.34 | 0.74 | |||||||||||||||||
Balance Sheet Data (at end of period): |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Property, plant and equipment, net |
$ | 37,607 | $ | 35,847 | $ | 30,996 | $ | 17,926 | $ | 17,071 | $ | 16,804 | ||||||||||
Total assets |
76,364 | 75,185 | 68,245 | 30,717 | 28,908 | 27,581 | ||||||||||||||||
Long-term debtKMI(b) |
8,088 | 9,321 | 9,248 | 2,078 | 2,918 | 2,925 | ||||||||||||||||
Long-term debtKMP(c) |
19,610 | 18,410 | 15,907 | 11,183 | 10,301 | 10,022 | ||||||||||||||||
Long-term debtEPB(d) |
4,750 | 4,179 | 4,254 | |||||||||||||||||||
Other Data: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(e) |
2.64 | 3.18 | 2.02 |
20
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2014 | 2013 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||||
|
(Unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
(in millions, except per unit information) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Income and Cash Flow Data: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Revenues |
$ | 7,229 | $ | 5,678 | $ | 12,530 | $ | 9,035 | $ | 7,889 | $ | 7,739 | $ | 6,697 | ||||||||
Operating income |
1,788 | 1,385 | 3,229 | 2,484 | 1,557 | 1,460 | 1,367 | |||||||||||||||
Earnings from equity investments |
137 | 157 | 297 | 295 | 224 | 136 | 91 | |||||||||||||||
Income from continuing operations |
1,423 | 1,804 | 3,321 | 2,070 | 1,067 | 1,092 | 1,036 | |||||||||||||||
(Loss) income from discontinued operations |
| (2 | ) | (4 | ) | (669 | ) | 201 | 235 | 248 | ||||||||||||
Net income |
1,423 | 1,802 | 3,317 | 1,401 | 1,268 | 1,327 | 1,284 | |||||||||||||||
Limited partners' interest in net income |
496 | 946 | 1,565 | (78 | ) | 83 | 431 | 332 | ||||||||||||||
Limited partners' net income (loss) per unit: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Income (loss) per unit from continuing operations |
$ | 1.09 | $ | 2.40 | $ | 3.77 | $ | 1.64 | $ | (0.35 | ) | $ | 0.65 | $ | 0.32 | |||||||
(Loss) income per unit from discontinued operations |
| (0.01 | ) | (0.01 | ) | (1.86 | ) | 0.60 | 0.75 | 0.86 | ||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net income (loss) per unit |
$ | 1.09 | $ | 2.39 | $ | 3.76 | $ | (0.22 | ) | $ | 0.25 | $ | 1.40 | $ | 1.18 | |||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Per unit cash distribution declared for the period(a) |
$ | 2.77 | $ | 2.62 | $ | 5.33 | $ | 4.98 | $ | 4.61 | $ | 4.40 | $ | 4.20 | ||||||||
Per unit cash distribution paid in the period(a) |
2.74 | 2.59 | 5.26 | 4.85 | 4.58 | 4.32 | 4.20 |
21
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2014 | 2013 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||||
|
(Unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
(in millions, except per unit information) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Balance Sheet Data (at end of period): |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Property, plant and equipment, net |
$ | 29,285 | $ | 27,405 | $ | 22,330 | $ | 15,596 | $ | 14,604 | $ | 14,154 | ||||||||||
Total assets |
44,551 | 42,764 | 34,976 | 24,103 | 21,861 | 20,262 | ||||||||||||||||
Long-term debt(b) |
19,610 | 18,410 | 15,907 | 11,183 | 10,301 | 10,022 |
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2014 | 2013 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||||
|
(Unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
(in millions, except per share amounts) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Income and Cash Flow Data: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Equity in earnings (loss) of KMP |
$ | 136 | $ | 271 | $ | 440 | $ | (23 | ) | $ | 19 | $ | 119 | $ | 91 | |||||||
Income tax expense (benefit) |
47 | 127 | 182 | (3 | ) | 6 | 45 | 32 | ||||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net income (loss) |
$ | 89 | $ | 144 | $ | 258 | $ | (20 | ) | $ | 13 | $ | 74 | $ | 59 | |||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Earnings (loss) per share, basic and diluted |
$ | 0.70 | $ | 1.23 | $ | 2.16 | $ | (0.19 | ) | $ | 0.14 | $ | 0.84 | $ | 0.72 | |||||||
Number of shares used in computing basic and diluted earnings per share |
128 | 117 | 120 | 105 | 95 | 89 | 82 | |||||||||||||||
Equivalent distribution value per share for the period(a)(b) |
$ | 2.77 | $ | 2.62 | $ | 5.33 | $ | 4.98 | $ | 4.61 | $ | 4.40 | $ | 4.20 | ||||||||
Balance Sheet Data (at end of period): |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Total assets (end of period) |
$ | 4,304 | $ | 4,092 | $ | 3,476 | $ | 2,732 | $ | 2,684 | $ | 2,535 |
22
historical consolidated financial data as of and for each of the six month periods ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 are derived from EPB's unaudited consolidated financial statements. You should read the following data in conjunction with "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and the consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto set forth in EPB's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and EPB's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014 incorporated by reference into this proxy statement. See "Where You Can Find More Information."
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2014 | 2013 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||||
|
(Unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
(in millions, except per unit information) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Income and Cash Flow Data: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Revenues |
$ | 735 | $ | 745 | $ | 1,505 | $ | 1,515 | $ | 1,531 | $ | 1,454 | $ | 1,231 | ||||||||
Operating income |
440 | 455 | 895 | 863 | 849 | 819 | 656 | |||||||||||||||
Net income |
304 | 310 | 610 | 589 | 605 | 666 | 542 | |||||||||||||||
Net income attributable to EPB |
304 | 310 | 610 | 579 | 512 | 418 | 357 | |||||||||||||||
Net income attributable to EPB per limited partner unit, basic and diluted: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Common units |
$ | 0.86 | $ | 0.98 | $ | 1.86 | $ | 2.15 | $ | 2.03 | $ | 1.90 | $ | 1.64 | ||||||||
Subordinated units(a) |
1.78 | 1.56 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Per unit cash distributions declared for the period(b) |
$ | 1.30 | $ | 1.25 | $ | 2.55 | $ | 2.25 | $ | 1.93 | $ | 1.63 | $ | 1.36 | ||||||||
Per unit cash distributions paid in the period(b) |
1.30 | 1.23 | 2.51 | 2.14 | 1.87 | 1.55 | 1.33 | |||||||||||||||
Balance Sheet Data (at end of period): |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Property, plant and equipment, net |
$ | 5,817 | $ | 5,879 | $ | 5,931 | $ | 6,040 | $ | 6,051 | $ | 5,781 | ||||||||||
Total assets |
8,102 | 6,495 | 6,581 | 6,679 | 6,569 | 6,565 | ||||||||||||||||
Long-term debt(c) |
4,742 | 4,171 | 4,246 | 4,028 | 3,580 | 2,732 |
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2014 |
Year Ended December 31, 2013 |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
(in millions, except per share amounts) |
||||||
Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Combined Statements of Income Information: |
|||||||
Revenues |
$ | 7,984 | $ | 14,070 | |||
Operating income |
2,160 | 3,990 | |||||
Earnings from equity investments |
199 | 327 | |||||
Income from continuing operations |
914 | 2,151 | |||||
Net income |
914 | 2,147 | |||||
Net income attributable to Kinder Morgan, Inc. |
911 | 2,143 | |||||
Basic and diluted earnings per common share |
$ |
0.43 |
$ |
1.01 |
|||
Basic and diluted weighted-average number of shares outstanding |
2,118 |
2,126 |
|
As of June 30, 2014 |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
(in millions) |
|||
Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Combined Balance Sheet Information: |
||||
Total assets |
$ | 79,995 | ||
Total debt(a) |
41,197 | |||
Total liabilities |
47,298 | |||
Total Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s stockholders' equity |
32,368 | |||
Noncontrolling interests |
329 | |||
Total stockholders' equity |
32,697 |
23
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2014 |
Year Ended December 31, 2013 |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HistoricalKMI |
|||||||
Income from continuing operations per sharebasic and diluted(a) |
$ | 0.55 | $ | 1.15 | |||
Dividends per share declared for the period |
$ | 0.85 | $ | 1.60 | |||
Book value per share(b) |
$ | 12.28 | $ | 12.70 | |||
HistoricalKMP |
|||||||
Income from continuing operations per unitbasic and diluted |
$ | 1.09 | $ | 3.77 | |||
Distributions per unit declared for the period |
$ | 2.77 | $ | 5.33 | |||
Book value per unit(b) |
$ | 37.48 | $ | 37.93 | |||
HistoricalKMR |
|||||||
Income from continuing operations per sharebasic and diluted |
$ | 0.70 | $ | 2.16 | |||
Distributions per share declared for the period |
$ | 2.77 | $ | 5.33 | |||
Book value per share(b) |
$ | 31.95 | $ | 32.06 | |||
HistoricalEPB |
|||||||
Income from continuing operations per unitbasic and diluted |
$ | 0.86 | $ | 1.86 | |||
Distributions per unit declared for the period |
$ | 1.30 | $ | 2.55 | |||
Book value per unit(b) |
$ | 12.82 | $ | 8.73 | |||
Pro forma combinedKMI |
|||||||
Income from continuing operations per sharebasic and diluted(c) |
$ | 0.43 | $ | 1.01 | |||
Dividends per share declared for the period(d) |
$ | 1.05 | $ | 1.88 | |||
Book value per share(e) |
$ | 15.28 | n/a | ||||
Equivalent pro forma combinedKMP(f) |
|||||||
Income from continuing operations per sharebasic and diluted |
$ | 0.94 | $ | 2.22 | |||
Dividends per share declared for the period |
$ | 2.30 | $ | 4.12 | |||
Book value per share |
$ | 33.51 | n/a | ||||
Equivalent pro forma combinedKMR(f) |
|||||||
Income from continuing operations per sharebasic and diluted |
$ | 1.07 | $ | 2.51 | |||
Dividends per share declared for the period |
$ | 2.61 | $ | 4.67 | |||
Book value per share |
$ | 37.97 | n/a | ||||
Equivalent pro forma combinedEPB(f) |
|||||||
Income from continuing operations per sharebasic and diluted |
$ | 0.41 | $ | 0.95 | |||
Dividends per share declared for the period |
$ | 0.99 | $ | 1.78 | |||
Book value per share |
$ | 14.44 | n/a |
24
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2014 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
KMI | KMP | KMR | EPB | |||||||||
Equity or capital, as applicable, before noncontrolling interests |
$ | 12,620 | $ | 17,317 | $ | 4,185 | $ | 3,026 | |||||
Divided by: Number of shares or units outstanding as of end of period |
1,028 | 462 | 131 | 236 | |||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Book value per share or unit |
$ | 12.28 | $ | 37.48 | $ | 31.95 | $ | 12.82 | |||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Year Ended December 31, 2013 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
KMI | KMP | KMR | EPB | |||||||||
Equity or capital, as applicable, before noncontrolling interests |
$ | 13,093 | $ | 16,801 | $ | 4,008 | $ | 1,939 | |||||
Divided by: Number of shares or units outstanding as of end of period |
1,031 | 443 | 125 | 222 | |||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Book value per share or unit |
$ | 12.70 | $ | 37.93 | $ | 32.06 | $ | 8.73 | |||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2014 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
KMI | KMP | KMR(1) | EPB | Total | |||||||||||
Declared dividends or distributions, as applicable, for the period to the public (historical) |
$ | 880 | $ | 833 | $ | 344 | $ | 173 | $ | 2,230 | ||||||
Divided by: Pro forma combined number of shares outstanding as of date of record |
2,118 | |||||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Dividends per share declared for the period (pro forma) |
$ | 1.05 | ||||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Year Ended December 31, 2013 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
KMI | KMP | KMR(1) | EPB | Total | |||||||||||
Declared dividends or distributions, as applicable, for the period to the public (historical) |
$ | 1,664 | $ | 1,468 | $ | 551 | $ | 324 | $ | 4,007 | ||||||
Divided by: Pro forma combined number of shares outstanding as of date of record |
2,126 | |||||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Dividends per share declared for the period (pro forma) |
$ | 1.88 | ||||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
25
|
As of June 30, 2014 |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|
Equity before noncontrolling interests |
$ | 32,368 | ||
Divided by: number of shares outstanding |
2,118 | |||
| | | | |
Book value per share |
$ | 15.28 | ||
| | | | |
| | | | |
26
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE SPECIAL MEETING AND THE PROPOSALS
27
majority of the shares of our common stock present in person or by proxy at the special meeting, whether or not a quorum exists.
For the stock issuance proposal, you may vote FOR, AGAINST or ABSTAIN. Abstentions will not be counted as votes cast or shares voting on the stock issuance proposal, but will count for the purpose of determining whether a quorum is present. If you abstain, it will have the same effect as if you voted against the stock issuance proposal. Failure to submit your proxy or to attend the meeting will have no effect on the approval of the adjournment proposal. In addition, if your shares are held in the name of a bank, broker, nominee, trust company or other fiduciary, your bank, broker, nominee, trust company or other fiduciary will not be entitled to vote your shares on the stock issuance proposal in the absence of specific instructions from you. These non-voted shares will not be counted as present for purposes of determining a quorum and will have no effect on the stock issuance proposal.
For the adjournment proposal, you may vote FOR, AGAINST or ABSTAIN. Abstentions will not be counted as votes cast or shares voting on the adjournment proposal, but will count for the purpose of determining whether a quorum is present. If you abstain, it will have the same effect as a vote against the adjournment proposal. Failure to submit your proxy or to attend the meeting will have no effect on the approval of the adjournment proposal. In addition, if your shares are held in the name of a bank, broker, nominee, trust company or other fiduciary, your bank, broker, nominee, trust company or other fiduciary will not be entitled to vote your shares on the adjournment proposal in the absence of specific instructions from you. These non-voted shares will not be counted as present for purposes of determining a quorum and will have no effect on the adjournment proposal.
If you sign your proxy card without indicating how you wish to vote, your shares will be voted FOR the charter amendment proposal, FOR the stock issuance proposal and FOR the adjournment proposal, and in accordance with the recommendations of our board of directors on any other matters properly brought before the meeting for a vote.
28
of their shares of our common stock FOR the charter amendment proposal, FOR the stock issuance proposal and FOR the adjournment proposal.
If your shares are held by your bank, broker, nominee, trust company or other fiduciary, see below.
If your shares are held by your bank, broker, nominee, trust company or other fiduciary, often referred to as held in "street name," please contact your bank, broker, nominee, trust company or other fiduciary to determine whether you will be able to vote by telephone or electronically.
29
If the charter amendment proposal is approved, the proposed amendment to our certificate of incorporation will be effected, regardless of whether we complete the Transactions.
D.F. King &
Co., Inc.
48 Wall Street, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10005
Banks and Brokers Call Collect: (212) 269-5550
All Others Call Toll-Free: (800) 331-5963
Email: kmi@dfking.com
30
Pursuant to the Transactions, KMI will acquire directly or indirectly all of the outstanding equity interests in KMP, KMR and EPB that KMI and its subsidiaries do not already own. The following steps will be taken in the following order and substantially concurrently in completing the Transactions:
31
Based on the closing price of our common stock on August 8, 2014 (the last trading day before announcement of the Transactions),
Each merger agreement is included as an annex to this proxy statement.
Each of the KMP merger and the EPB merger will be taxable to the former holders of KMP and EPB common units. It is a condition of KMI's obligation to complete the KMR merger that KMI receive an opinion of its counsel, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, and it is a condition of KMR's obligation to complete the KMR merger that KMR receive an opinion of Baker Botts L.L.P., counsel to the KMR special committee, in each case dated as of the closing date of the KMR merger and based on representations set forth or referred to therein, to the effect that the KMR merger, taken separately or taken together with a second step merger, will qualify as a reorganization within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code. Assuming the KMR merger constitutes a reorganization, the KMR merger will be tax free to the former holders of KMR shares, except to the extent of any cash received in lieu of fractional shares as part of the KMR merger consideration. Please see "Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences."
Each merger agreement is subject to approval by the unitholders or shareholders of KMR, KMP and EPB, as applicable. We also are required to hold a special meeting of our stockholders to approve an amendment to our certificate of incorporation to increase our authorized shares of our common stock and to approve the issuance of our common stock in the Transactions. In connection with the merger agreements, Richard D. Kinder and a limited partnership which he controls have entered into a support agreement whereby they have agreed to vote all of the shares of our common stock owned by them in favor of the three proposals at the KMI special meeting. Please see "The Support Agreement."
After the consummation of the KMP, KMR and EPB mergers, KMI, KMP and EPB and substantially all of their wholly owned subsidiaries with debt will enter into cross guarantees with respect to the existing debt of KMI, KMP, EPB and such subsidiaries, so that KMI and those
32
subsidiaries will be liable for the debt of KMI, KMP, EPB and such subsidiaries. Further, following the consummation of the Transactions, EPB is expected to be acquired by KMP.
Background of the Transactions
The senior management and boards of directors of each of KMI, KMGP, EPGP and KMR regularly review operational and strategic opportunities to maximize value for investors of KMI, KMP, EPB and KMR, respectively. In connection with these reviews, the management and boards of directors of each of the companies from time to time evaluate potential transactions that would further their respective strategic objectives.
As more fully described in the section entitled "Relationship Between the Parties," KMI conducts most of its business through KMP and EPB. KMI directly and indirectly owns approximately 43 million units of KMP. These units, which consist of approximately 22 million common units, 5 million Class B units and 16 million i-units (corresponding to the number of KMR shares owned by KMI), represent approximately 10% of the total outstanding limited partner interests of KMP. KMI also indirectly owns all of the common stock of KMGP, the general partner of KMP, which owns an effective 2% interest in KMP and its operating partnerships and the right to receive incentive distributions from KMP. KMGP has delegated to KMR, subject to limited exceptions, all of its rights and powers to manage and control the business and affairs of KMP and its operating limited partnerships. KMGP also owns all of the shares of KMR that elect the members of the KMR board. KMR owns all of the outstanding i-units of KMP. KMI owns approximately 16 million KMR listed shares, representing approximately 13% of KMR's outstanding shares. KMI also indirectly owns all of the membership interests in EPGP, which owns a 2% general partner interest in EPB, as well as approximately 40% of the outstanding common units of EPB and all of EPB's incentive distribution rights.
From late-2013 to mid-2014, senior management of KMI, with the assistance of Barclays Capital, financial advisor to KMI, considered and discussed with the KMI board numerous potential strategic alternatives with respect to KMI, KMP, KMR and EPB to enhance value for their respective investors, including a potential reset of the general partner's incentive distribution rights at KMP, a potential equity investment in KMI by a third party, potential combination transactions involving KMP and EPB, and potential strategic alternatives regarding KMP's CO2 business. By mid-March 2014, KMI senior management had determined that none of the potential alternatives reviewed were superior to continuing to operate under the existing structures. Beginning on March 17, 2014, KMI senior management began considering the possibilities surrounding a potential acquisition by KMI of the remaining publicly traded equity securities of KMP, KMR and EPB that it did not already own. During the regularly scheduled KMI board meeting on April 16, 2014, KMI senior management provided a brief update to the KMI board during which it reviewed the numerous potential strategic alternatives that management had been exploring, including potential Transactions involving KMI acquiring KMP, KMR and EPB. The strategic alternatives that KMI senior management reviewed with the KMI board on April 16, 2014 included (i) a potential reset of the general partner's incentive distribution rights at KMP, which the KMI board and KMI senior management dismissed because such a transaction would not be attractive to all parties involved and would provide only a temporary benefit until such time as the incentive distribution once again reached its maximum percentage, and the KMI board's and KMI management's view that a reset of the incentive distribution rights could be implemented from time to time as needed to enable a large accretive acquisition, (ii) a potential equity investment in KMI by a third party, which the KMI board and KMI senior management dismissed because, among other reasons, the equity investment would likely be made at a price that the KMI board and KMI management did not believe was desirable, (iii) potential combination transactions involving KMP and EPB, which the KMI board and KMI senior management dismissed due to tax inefficiencies raised by the potential transactions and the economic terms to accomplish such potential transactions not being attractive to the parties and (iv) potentially separating KMP's CO2 business through a spin-off, initial public offering or sale transaction, which the KMI board and KMI management dismissed due to tax
33
inefficiencies raised by the potential transactions, the dilutive effect of the potential transactions and the valuation uncertainties raised by the potential transactions. These strategic alternatives were considered by the KMI board and KMI senior management taking into account the interests of each of KMP, KMR and EPB and were not reviewed and considered at such time by the KMGP board, KMR board or EPGP board (the KMGP/KMR committee later considered strategic alternatives with its independent advisors as further described in this section entitled "Background of the Transactions").
On May 13, 2014, KMI senior management again updated the KMI board on its preliminary exploration of the potential Transactions involving KMP, KMR, EPB and KMI. KMI management noted the advantages and issues to be resolved with respect to such transactions. In particular, KMI management noted that it could not recommend that the KMI board seriously consider pursuing the potential Transactions unless and until KMI had received adequate assurances from the credit rating agencies that KMI would be rated investment grade following such transactions. At the meeting, Barclays Capital reviewed its preliminary analysis with the KMI board. The KMI board recognized that the analyses were very preliminary and agreed that KMI management, with the assistance of Barclays Capital, should continue to explore the potential Transactions, including by meeting with the rating agencies in order to obtain their views on KMI's prospective credit rating if such Transactions were completed. Accordingly, KMI management had confidential meetings with the rating agencies in early June 2014 to determine the impact of the potential Transactions on KMI's credit rating. In late June 2014, the rating agencies advised senior management of KMI of their view that following the consummation of the Transactions, KMI would have an investment grade credit rating.
In late June 2014, KMI also retained Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which is referred to as "Citi," to provide financial advisory services to KMI with respect to a potential acquisition by KMI of KMP, KMR and EPB, including assisting KMI in evaluating certain financial and market perspectives regarding KMI and the potential pro forma financial impact of such Transactions on KMI.
On July 10, 2014, at a meeting of the KMI board, senior management of KMI provided the KMI board with a preliminary overview of the possible strategic benefits of an acquisition of KMP, KMR and EPB by KMI. Following discussion, the KMI board authorized KMI senior management to continue to explore the possible strategic benefits of the potential Transactions and to initiate a dialogue with the independent board members of each of KMGP, KMR and EPGP with respect to the potential Transactions. After the conclusion of the meeting of the KMI board, Mr. Kinder reached out to the lead independent board members of KMGP, KMR and EPGP to schedule a meeting with the independent board members of KMGP and KMR and a separate meeting with the independent board members of EPGP on July 17 to discuss the potential Transactions.
On July 16, 2014, the boards of EPGP, KMGP, KMR and KMI met in person in Houston, Texas for their regularly scheduled board meetings. At the separate meeting of the KMI board, senior management of KMI discussed with all members of the KMI board the potential acquisition by KMI of KMP, KMR and EPB. During this discussion, Barclays Capital and Citi each separately reviewed with the KMI board certain preliminary analyses relating to the potential Transactions. Barclays Capital provided an overview of the potential Transactions, including the benefits of structural consolidation of the companies (which include enhanced growth prospects, a lower overall cost of capital, greater dividend coverage and credit enhancement due to the simplification of the corporate structure), an analysis of the pro forma consequences of the potential combination (including with respect to the impact on KMI common stock), a sensitivity analysis of the dividend coverage based on various premiums paid to KMP, KMR and EPB, a preliminary "has-gets" analysis which looked at the status quo for each of KMP/KMR and EPB compared with the combined company on a pro forma basis, as well as a comparable companies analysis for KMI. Citi reviewed with the KMI board, among other things, the relative trading performance of KMI, KMP and EPB and relative financial performance of KMI and selected peers, certain market perspectives regarding KMI common stock, potential total investment returns for KMI pro forma for the Transactions and certain potential pro forma financial effects of the transactions on KMI, KMP, KMR and EPB assuming, illustratively, either a 10% or 15%
34
premium paid to each of KMP, KMR and EPB in the transactions. The KMI board also discussed the affiliated nature of the transactions and agreed that members of KMI senior management, including Messrs. Kinder and Kean, as well as Kimberly Dang, Dax Sanders and David DeVeau, would represent KMI in any negotiations and that Messrs. Kinder and Kean would recuse themselves from any deliberations regarding the potential transactions at the boards of KMGP, KMR and EPGP. In addition, Mr. Martin, a director of EPGP, would not participate in any negotiations and would recuse himself from any deliberations regarding the potential transactions at the EPGP board. Members of KMI senior management also discussed with the KMI board their expectation that any potential transactions should be reviewed and approved by the EPGP conflicts committee and the KMGP conflicts committee in accordance with the procedures set forth in the partnership agreements of KMP and EPB and by the independent directors of KMR.
On July 17, 2014, Mr. Kinder and other members of senior management of KMI along with representatives of Barclays Capital met separately with Ted A. Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist and Perry M. Waughtal, the independent members of the KMGP board and the KMR board, and Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr., Arthur C. Reichstetter and William A. Smith, the independent members of the EPGP board. At each of these meetings, Mr. Kinder and other members of senior management of KMI presented to the independent members of the KMGP board and the KMR board and the independent members of the EPGP board, respectively, an overview of the potential Transactions involving each of KMI, KMP, KMR and EPB. In addition, at each of the meetings, Barclays Capital provided an overview of the challenges of the current structure of the Kinder Morgan family of companies, including the higher cost of capital of KMP and EPB at times limiting the ability of KMP and EPB to be competitive in making large accretive acquisitions and developing large projects needed for a meaningful impact on cash flows per unit, the lower distribution coverage relative to peers, concern around EPB's potential growth, the contribution of KMP's CO2 business relative to KMP's combined businesses and the potential impact to distributions at KMP due to commodity exposure at KMP's CO2 business. Representatives of Barclays Capital also reviewed the potential strategic alternatives that had been considered by the KMI board, including an acquisition of EPB by KMP followed by an acquisition of KMI by KMP, an acquisition of EPB by KMP, an acquisition of EPB by KMI followed by a drop-down of EPB into KMP, a reset of the incentive distribution rights at KMP and alternatives with respect to certain of KMI's business units, and the reasons why the KMI board determined that the proposed Transactions were the best alternative to create value for all equityholders.
At the meeting with the independent members of the KMGP board and KMR board, Barclays Capital summarized the potential benefits of the proposed Transactions to each of KMP and KMR. At the meeting with the independent members of the EPGP board, Barclays Capital summarized the potential benefits of the proposed Transactions to EPB. At each of the meetings, members of KMI management then informed the independent directors that KMI was interested in exploring an acquisition of KMP and KMR for a 10% premium to the July 16, 2014 closing price of KMP common units (which represented an offer of $10.77 in cash and an exchange ratio of 2.1624 for each KMP common unit and a corresponding exchange ratio of 2.4543 for each KMR share) and an acquisition of EPB for a 10% premium to the July 16, 2014 closing price of EPB common units (which represented an offer of $4.65 in cash and an exchange ratio of 0.9337 for each EPB common unit), and that each transaction would be cross-conditioned upon the others. The proposed merger consideration in the case of KMP and EPB would be a mix of cash and KMI common stock (approximately 88% stock and 12% cash) in a taxable transaction and in the case of KMR would be 100% KMI common stock in a non-taxable transaction. KMI management believed that exploring an acquisition at a 10% premium to the July 16th closing price of KMP common units was appropriate based upon the historical trading price of KMP common units. KMI management used the premium being considered to KMP common unitholders as the basis for determining the potential consideration to the KMR shareholders and the premium to be explored with the EPB common unitholders.
35
At each of the meetings, Mr. Kinder and the independent directors discussed that, if the independent directors were to proceed with exploring the proposed transaction, (i) any such transaction would be reviewed and subject to approval by the EPGP conflicts committee and the KMGP conflicts committee, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the respective partnership agreements of EPB and KMP, and by the independent members of the KMR board, (ii) the EPGP conflicts committee, the KMGP conflicts committee and the independent members of the KMR board (who are the same individuals who comprise the KMGP conflicts committee) would retain independent legal and financial advisors of their choosing to evaluate the proposed transactions, (iii) Messrs. Kinder and Kean would recuse themselves from any deliberations at the KMGP board, KMR board and, together with Mr. Martin, from any deliberations at the EPGP board, in each case due to their affiliation with KMI, and (iv) members of senior management of KMI would represent KMI in any negotiations, but would provide access to information that the EPGP conflicts committee, the KMGP conflicts committee and the independent members of the KMR board and their respective advisors would need to evaluate the proposed transactions and be available to answer diligence requests and questions they might have in connection with the proposed transactions. Mr. Kinder also discussed with the independent members of the KMGP board, the KMR board and the EPGP board that given the large stock component of the Transactions and the desire to ensure continuity as the entities were combined, KMI would be willing to increase the size of its board of directors, subject to KMI's nominations process, so that all of the independent members of the KMGP board, the KMR board and the EPGP board would be able to continue to participate in the governance of the combined company if they deemed it desirable to the unaffiliated equityholders of KMP, KMR and EPB (as applicable).
At the conclusion of the respective meetings on July 17, after discussion, each of the KMGP board, the EPGP board and the KMR board delegated authority to evaluate the proposed Transactions to the KMGP conflicts committee, in the case of KMP, Messrs. Kuehn, Reichstetter and Smith, in the case of EPB and the KMR special committee, in the case of KMR. In the case of EPGP, the formal resolutions forming and delegating authority to the EPGP conflicts committee (consistent with the motions approved by the EPGP board on July 17, 2014) were adopted on July 22, 2014 and provided the EPGP conflicts committee the authority to, among other things, (i) review and evaluate the terms of the proposed transactions on behalf of the unaffiliated EPB unitholders, (ii) negotiate, or delegate to any person or persons the ability to negotiate, the terms and conditions of the proposed EPB transaction, (iii) determine whether or not to approve and recommend for approval to the EPGP board the proposed EPB transaction, (iv) make any recommendation to the unaffiliated EPB unitholders regarding what action, if any, should be taken by the unaffiliated EPB unitholders with respect to the proposed EPB transaction and (v) retain independent professional advisors. The formal resolutions forming and delegating authority to the EPGP conflicts committee did not provide the EPGP conflicts committee the authority to review and evaluate, negotiate, approve or make any recommendation to the unaffiliated EPB unitholders regarding any potential alternative transactions to the EPB merger. Therefore, the EPGP conflicts committee considered the proposed transaction against remaining a publicly traded MLP whose general partner interest is owned by KMI, but did not consider other strategic alternatives. In the case of KMGP and KMR, the formal resolutions forming and delegating authority to the KMGP conflicts committee and the KMR special committee (in each case consistent with the motions approved by the KMGP board and the KMR board on July 17, 2014) were adopted on August 9, 2014 and provided each of the KMGP conflicts committee and the KMR special committee the authority to, among other things, with respect to KMP and KMR, respectively, (i) review and evaluate the terms and conditions, and determine the advisability, of the proposed KMP/KMR transactions, (ii) make such investigations of potential alternatives to the proposed KMP/KMR transactions only among KMI, KMR, KMP, KMGP, EPB or their affiliates, including maintaining the status quo, as the applicable committee deemed necessary or appropriate, (iii) negotiate, or delegate to any person or persons the ability to negotiate, the terms and conditions of the proposed KMP/KMR transactions, (iv) determine whether to give or withhold the committee's approval of the proposed KMP/KMR transactions, (v) determine whether to make a recommendation to the respective boards
36
whether to approve the proposed KMP/KMR transactions and (vi) retain independent professional advisors. We sometimes refer collectively to the KMGP conflicts committee and the KMR special committee as the "KMGP/KMR committee" for ease of reference.
Later on July 17, 2014, on behalf of the EPGP conflicts committee, Mr. Smith contacted Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., which we refer to as "Vinson & Elkins," to discuss engaging Vinson & Elkins, given its extensive experience in public company merger transactions and master limited partnership, or "MLP," transactions, to represent the EPGP conflicts committee, upon its formation, in connection with the proposed EPB merger. At the request of the EPGP conflicts committee, Mr. Reichstetter contacted Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., which we refer to as "TPH," to discuss engaging TPH, given its extensive experience in public company merger transactions and MLP transactions, as financial advisor to the EPGP conflicts committee, upon its formation, in connection with the proposed EPB merger. The EPGP conflicts committee entered into engagement letters with each of Vinson & Elkins and TPH on July 25, 2014 and July 30, 2014, respectively, in each case after reviewing and discussing each firm's historical relationships with KMI and its affiliates, and negotiating acceptable engagement letters.
In addition, on July 17, 2014, Mr. Hultquist, on behalf of the KMGP/KMR committee, contacted Jefferies to discuss engaging Jefferies with respect to the proposed Transactions, and requested that Jefferies prepare a presentation of Jefferies' qualifications to be given at an in-person meeting with each of the members of the KMGP/KMR committee present. Mr. Hultquist later contacted Baker Botts L.L.P., which we refer to as "Baker Botts," to discuss engaging Baker Botts, given its knowledge and experience with respect to public merger and acquisition transactions, MLPs and KMP and KMR particularly in having acted as legal advisors to committees of the KMGP and KMR boards in prior drop-down transactions, as well as Baker Botts' substantial experience advising MLPs and other companies with respect to transactions similar to the proposed Transactions. An engagement letter detailing the terms of Baker Botts' engagement was entered on August 7, 2014.
Also on July 17, 2014, KMI management provided representatives of TPH with projections regarding KMP, KMR and EPB on a standalone basis and the pro forma combined company, as well as an analysis of the proposed transactions prepared by Barclays Capital.
On July 18, 2014, Mr. Sanders and representatives of TPH and Vinson & Elkins participated in a conference call to discuss the proposed economic and tax structure of the proposed EPB merger.
On July 19, 2014, the EPGP conflicts committee also engaged Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., which we refer to as "Richards Layton," as Delaware counsel.
On July 20, 2014, KMI entered into a confidentiality agreement with EPB and on July 21, 2014, KMI entered into a confidentiality agreement with KMP and KMR. Each of the confidentiality agreements contained customary provisions for the confidentiality of discussions and the exchange of information. Neither of the confidentiality agreements contained standstill provisions.
On July 21, 2014, the KMGP/KMR committee met with representatives of Baker Botts and Jefferies. Prior to Jefferies joining the meeting, the KMGP/KMR committee and Baker Botts discussed the terms of the proposed Transactions and the potential benefits of the proposed Transactions, including the lower cost of capital on a pro forma basis as compared to KMP on a standalone basis, the increased ability to pursue acquisitions and higher distribution growth of the combined entity, as well as better distribution coverage for the combined entity. The KMGP/KMR committee and Baker Botts also discussed potential negative impacts of the proposed Transactions, including the tax effects on KMP unitholders. The KMGP/KMR committee and Baker Botts discussed the respective duties of the KMGP/KMR committee with respect to the proposed Transactions and the equity ownership of each of the members of the KMGP/KMR committee in KMI, KMP and KMR. Following such discussion, representatives of Jefferies joined the meeting and discussed Jefferies' experience and qualifications, including with respect to public merger and acquisition transactions, MLPs, KMP's industry generally, and KMP and KMR particularly, as well as its substantial experience advising MLPs
37
and other companies with respect to transactions similar to the proposed transactions. The representatives of Jefferies also noted that Jefferies had not been engaged by KMI, KMP, KMR, EPB or any of their affiliates in the past three years and had no historical M&A or capital markets revenue from or credit exposure to any of them. After Jefferies left the meeting, the KMGP/KMR committee and Baker Botts discussed the qualifications, experience and reputation of Jefferies and another potential financial advisor that had advised the KMGP/KMR committee in prior drop-down transactions, and the KMGP/KMR committee then determined to retain Jefferies as its financial advisor, subject to negotiation of a formal engagement letter with Jefferies. During the course of the negotiation of the Jefferies engagement letter, Jefferies informed the KMGP/KMR committee that a member of the Jefferies team held less than 500 shares of KMI common stock in an investment account managed by a third party. Later in the day on July 21, the KMGP/KMR committee also engaged Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP as Delaware counsel, which we refer to as "Morris Nichols." An engagement letter detailing the terms of Morris Nichols' engagement was entered into on August 4, 2014.
Also on July 21, 2014, members of senior management of KMI, including Messrs. Kean, DeVeau and Sanders and Ms. Dang as well as representatives of Barclays Capital, met with representatives of TPH and Vinson & Elkins to make a presentation with respect to the assets, business plan, growth projects and outlook for KMI, KMP and EPB, during which the parties discussed key assumptions underlying management's projections for the standalone companies. Following the diligence session, representatives from Vinson & Elkins met with Messrs. Kuehn, Reichstetter and Smith to review the substance of the diligence session and discuss other procedural matters, including the scope of the authority to be delegated to the EPGP conflicts committee.
In addition, later that evening on July 21, 2014, after discussions with members of KMI senior management and representatives of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP (counsel to KMI), representatives of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, counsel to KMI and which we refer to as "Weil," sent a draft merger agreement to each of Vinson & Elkins and Baker Botts. The draft merger agreements provided for a mix of cash and stock consideration in the case of EPB and KMP (with no ability to elect between cash and stock consideration) and 100% stock consideration in the case of KMR. In addition, the draft merger agreements provided that for KMI each transaction would be cross-conditioned upon the others and provided for a termination fee of 3.5% of the equity value of KMP, KMR or EPB payable by such entity under specified circumstances and a termination fee of 1.5% of the equity value payable by KMI under specified circumstances. The termination fees would be payable by KMP, KMR and EPB in the event of termination following a change in recommendation or in certain cases where an alternative transaction was consummated within 12 months of termination. The termination fee payable by KMI would be payable only in the event of termination following a change in recommendation by the KMI board. The draft merger agreements included customary "no shop" provisions applicable to KMP, KMR and EPB, but did not include a "no shop" provision applicable to KMI.
On July 22, 2014, members of senior management of KMI as well as representatives of Barclays Capital had a conference call with representatives of Jefferies and Baker Botts to discuss the structure of the proposed transactions and their economic terms.
Also on July 22, 2014, the EPGP conflicts committee met with representatives of TPH, Vinson & Elkins and Richards Layton, to discuss matters related to the proposed EPB merger, including the scope of authority delegated to the EPGP conflicts committee, the terms of the draft EPB merger agreement, the status of the financial diligence and analysis being conducted by TPH, certain economic and tax aspects of the proposed EPB merger and various process matters. Among other items, the EPGP conflicts committee reviewed and discussed information regarding prior relationships between TPH and Vinson & Elkins, as the case may be, and KMI and its affiliates, as well as information regarding personal ownership interests of the TPH representatives advising on the EPB merger in KMI and its affiliates, and determined that the prior relationships and personal ownership interests did not result in a conflict of interest that would result in the inability of either Vinson & Elkins or TPH to
38
serve effectively as independent advisors to the EPGP conflicts committee. The EPGP conflicts committee members also disclosed to each other their respective personal ownership of equity interests in KMI and its affiliates.
On July 23, 2014, members of senior management of KMI together with representatives of Barclays Capital had separate discussions with representatives of Jefferies and TPH regarding financial due diligence matters.
On July 24, 2014, members of senior management of KMI as well as representatives of Barclays Capital and Citi, including Messrs. Kean, DeVeau and Sanders and Ms. Dang, met with Mr. Hultquist and representatives of Jefferies and Baker Botts to give a presentation with respect to the assets, business plan, growth projects and outlook for KMI, KMP and EPB.
Also on July 24, 2014, the EPGP conflicts committee met with representatives from TPH, Vinson & Elkins and Richards Layton. The EPGP conflicts committee and its advisors discussed the financial aspects of the proposed EPB merger and certain aspects of TPH's preliminary views with respect to the proposed EPB merger, which TPH indicated it would be able to present in more detail at the next meeting of the EPGP conflicts committee, scheduled for July 30, 2014. The EPGP conflicts committee members, together with their advisors, discussed, among other things, the EPGP conflicts committee members' view that the benefits of the proposed EPB merger would largely depend on assumptions regarding the growth rate, credit rating and trading yield of the combined company, and also discussed certain challenges and considerations in evaluating the proposed EPB merger, including (i) uncertainty as to how the market would view KMI, on a pro forma basis for the Transactions, given the lack of clearly comparable companies and the broad range of companies that shared some, but not all, of the key characteristics of the combined company from an investment perspective, such as growth rate, dividend profile and asset class, (ii) the taxable nature of the EPB merger to EPB unitholders, combined with the fact that a substantial majority of the merger consideration was anticipated to be paid in KMI common stock, resulting in the EPB merger being comparable to both a cash merger (in which valuation analysis focuses on the value of the consideration being received at a point in time) and a stock merger (in which valuation analysis also focuses on the value of the consideration being received over time), (iii) the fact that the tax consequences of the EPB merger would vary among the EPB unitholders, depending, among other things, on their individual tax characteristics and how long they had owned EPB common units, (iv) challenges facing EPB as a standalone company, specifically its limited expected growth prospects and recontracting risk associated with contract expirations on certain of its pipelines, (v) the fact that, because KMI had indicated it did not wish to consider a sale of its interest in EPB to a third party, EPB had limited strategic alternatives to operating as a standalone company and (vi) the difficulty in projecting the appropriate cost of capital for KMI on a pro forma basis for the Transactions, which would be affected by its credit rating, its trading yield, the methods by which it determined to finance growth and, potentially, external factors such as changes in interest rates. After further discussion, the EPGP conflicts committee members requested that TPH focus on these and other issues as it proceeded with its financial analysis of the EPB merger.
Also at the July 24 meeting, representatives from Richards Layton reviewed with the members of the EPGP conflicts committee their duties under the EPB partnership agreement. The EPGP conflicts committee also reviewed and discussed information regarding current and prior relationships between Richards Layton and KMI and its affiliates, and determined that such relationships did not result in a conflict of interest that would result in Richards Layton not being able to serve effectively as independent advisors to the EPGP conflicts committee.
The EPGP conflicts committee members also discussed the terms of the EPB merger agreement that Weil had distributed to Vinson & Elkins and the key issues reflected in or raised by the draft, including (i) KMI's ownership of approximately 40% of the EPB common units, and the implications with respect thereto on the appropriateness of a "force the vote" provision, as reflected in the initial draft, or a simple majority approval requirement for the EPB merger, (ii) the embedded optionality at
39
KMI and KMP because their equityholders would also be entitled to vote on the Transactions, (iii) the need for the EPGP conflicts committee to have the ability to change its recommendation, which had been restricted to situations in which there was a "superior proposal" in the initial draft EPB merger agreement, including in the event that the EPGP board approved changes to the proposed EPB merger without the EPGP conflicts committee's consent, (iv) the appropriate remedies in the event the EPGP conflicts committee were to change its recommendation or the EPGP board were to determine to pursue an alternative transaction, compared to the termination fees of 3.5% and 1.5% of equity value, respectively, proposed by KMI, (v) the need for the Transactions to close concurrently and be cross-conditioned on each other, which was inconsistent with KMI's initial proposal that completion of the other mergers only be a condition to KMI's (and not EPB's) obligations to complete the proposed EPB merger and (vi) the need to restrict the ability of the EPGP board or KMI to change the composition of the EPGP conflicts committee or otherwise take actions without the EPGP conflicts committee's consent, which had not been addressed in the initial draft EPB merger agreement.
After discussion among the EPGP conflicts committee members and its advisors, including as to the benefits and detriments of negotiating any issues in the EPB merger agreement prior to reaching agreement with KMI on the economic terms of the proposed EPB merger, the EPGP conflicts committee instructed its legal advisors to prepare a revised merger agreement providing, among other things, that (i) the completion of the KMP merger and KMR merger would be a mutual closing condition, (ii) the "force the vote" construct would be acceptable, but there would be a "majority of the unaffiliated votes cast" threshold for the EPB unitholder approval of the proposed EPB merger, (iii) the EPGP conflicts committee would have the right to the extent necessary to meet its obligations to change its recommendation of the proposed EPB merger with no termination fee or other costs payable by EPB, (iv) the full EPGP board, in addition to the EPGP conflicts committee, would make a recommendation to the EPB unitholders regarding the proposed EPB merger, (v) there would be restrictions on the ability of KMI and EPGP to alter the composition of the EPGP conflicts committee prior to the termination of the EPB merger agreement and (vi) the EPGP board would be required to provide the EPGP conflicts committee with advance notice of any potential amendment, waiver or decision under the EPB merger agreement and give the EPGP conflicts committee an opportunity to make a recommendation to the EPGP board with respect thereto. The EPGP conflicts committee authorized Vinson & Elkins to revise the EPB merger agreement accordingly and circulate a draft to KMI and its advisors, but (i) to reserve comment in the draft with respect to matters subject to ongoing legal and financial diligence and (ii) to indicate to KMI and its advisors that the EPGP conflicts committee had not yet determined whether a transaction was acceptable on any economic terms, and that the economic terms of any negotiated transaction may result in changes to the EPGP conflicts committee's positions with respect to the EPB merger agreement.
On the night of July 24, 2014, representatives of Vinson & Elkins sent a revised draft merger agreement to Weil in accordance with the EPGP conflicts committee's instructions.
On July 25, 2014, Mr. Sanders had a discussion with representatives of Jefferies regarding the other alternatives that were considered by the KMI board (as described in more detail above).
Also on July 25, 2014, members of senior management of KMI had a discussion with representatives of TPH regarding tax aspects of the proposed EPB merger.
On July 25, 2014, the KMGP/KMR committee met with representatives of Baker Botts to discuss the terms of the draft merger agreements previously distributed by Weil. Baker Botts noted that it had engaged in discussions with counsel for KMI with regard to potential alternative tax-free structures.
On July 28, 2014, the KMGP/KMR committee met with representatives of Baker Botts and Morris Nichols to discuss proposed revisions to the KMP merger agreement made by Baker Botts and, after review with the members of the KMGP conflicts committee, Baker Botts sent a revised draft of the KMP merger agreement to Weil, which, among other things, included more expansive representations and warranties and interim operating covenants applicable to KMI, a requirement that a majority of
40
the unitholders of KMP other than KMI and its affiliates vote in favor of the merger agreement, a "no shop" covenant applicable to KMI in addition to KMP, a requirement that certain directors of KMI sign a support agreement, a limit on KMI's ability to revoke or diminish the authority of the KMGP/KMR committee and a provision that the termination fees payable by either KMP or KMI should be the same amount and payable only in the event of entering into an alternative transaction within 12 months of terminating the merger agreement under certain circumstances.
On July 28, 2014, Weil distributed to Vinson & Elkins a revised draft of the EPB merger agreement.
On July 29, 2014, representatives of Weil and Baker Botts had a conference call to discuss the changes proposed in the revised draft of the KMP merger agreement sent by Baker Botts on July 28, in which Weil relayed KMI's position that KMI would not agree to the proposed changes to the interim operating covenant limiting KMI's operations prior to closing other than with respect to operating in the ordinary course, the requirement that a majority of the unitholders of KMP other than KMI and its affiliates vote in favor of the merger agreement, the limitation on KMI's ability to revoke or diminish the KMGP/KMR committee's authority or the KMGP/KMR committee's revised termination fee structure. Weil noted that KMI would be willing to accept certain of the proposed changes to the representations and warranties and agree to a "no shop" covenant applicable to KMI and that Mr. Kinder would be willing to enter into a support agreement to vote his KMI common stock in favor of the proposals at the KMI stockholders' meeting if such obligation would fall away in the event of an adverse KMI board recommendation.
Later in the evening of July 29, Baker Botts sent a revised draft of the KMR merger agreement to Weil implementing substantially similar changes as proposed in the revised draft of the KMP merger agreement sent by Baker Botts to Weil on July 28.
On July 30, 2014, the KMGP/KMR committee met with representatives of Baker Botts, Morris Nichols and Jefferies. Baker Botts reviewed with the KMGP/KMR committee the matters discussed with Weil during the July 29 discussion. Baker Botts and Morris Nichols then discussed the duties of the KMGP/KMR committee under the KMP partnership agreement and the KMR limited liability company agreement. Baker Botts and Morris Nichols also discussed the issues presented by Messrs. Gardner, Hultquist and Waughtal serving on each of the KMGP conflicts committee and the KMR special committee and having the same advisors for each committee. Baker Botts noted that, as the KMGP conflicts committee, Messrs. Gardner, Hultquist and Waughtal would make a determination with respect to the Transactions as to the interests of the KMP unitholders, and, as the KMR special committee, Messrs. Gardner, Hultquist and Waughtal would separately make a determination with respect to the Transactions as to the interests of the KMR shareholders. The KMGP/KMR committee discussed the interests of the KMP unitholders and the KMR shareholders, and, in this regard, noted that the KMI proposal included the same effective exchange ratio for KMP and KMR and discussed the common interests of KMP unitholders and KMR shareholders, including that (i) KMP common units and KMR shares had a long history of trading in parallel, recently within a tight trading range, and (ii) the economic interests and pro rata ownership of the underlying assets, liabilities and net worth of KMP were the same because KMR's only material assets are KMP i-units. The KMGP/KMR committee also discussed the different interests of the KMP unitholders and KMR shareholders, including (i) the historical and current trading discount of KMR shares to KMP common units and the resulting merger premium difference as a result of the KMI proposal having the same effective exchange ratio for KMP and KMR, (ii) that the KMP merger would be a taxable transaction for KMP unitholders who had historically received partially or wholly non-taxable cash distributions, depending upon the individual situation of the unitholder, and the KMR merger would not be a taxable transaction for KMR shareholders, (iii) the entity-level tax treatment of KMP and KMR on a historical basis and of KMI going forward, (iv) the different cash/stock consideration mix for KMP unitholders and KMR shareholders and (v) the differences in the economic and legal attributes of KMP common units and KMR shares, including with respect to distributions. The KMGP/KMR committee discussed
41
potential alternative approval structures including the appointment of additional directors to serve on either committee. In addition to the above, the KMGP/KMR committee discussed issues presented by alternative approval structures and hiring separate advisors for each committee, including (i) that the appointment of new directors, who would have less, if any, familiarity with the business of KMP or KMR and the issues giving rise to the proposed Transactions, would not better serve the interests of either entity or their respective equity holders, and (ii) the potential that a delay caused by identifying and appointing additional directors and hiring additional advisors could increase the risk of subsequent disparate trading prices of the four equity securities involved, which in each case could materially jeopardize the approval process and be a material detriment to the receipt by the unaffiliated KMP unitholders and KMR shareholders of the substantial benefits of the proposed Transactions.
Following such discussion, Jefferies provided a presentation to the KMGP/KMR committee, which included a discussion of the benefits of the proposed Transactions, including, among others, (i) the simplification of the Kinder Morgan organizational structure, (ii) the lower cost of capital of the combined entity and the resulting ability to fund acquisitions and capital expenditures necessary to grow dividends of the combined entity and (iii) the higher projected dividend growth and stronger coverage ratio of the combined entity as compared to KMP on a stand-alone basis. Jefferies discussed various other matters with the KMGP/KMR committee, including (i) the potential tax implications of the proposed Transactions, (ii) the different premiums reflected in the proposed merger consideration for the various transaction parties as a result of recent trading prices, (iii) risks associated with sustaining the projected dividend growth of the combined entity and (iv) the near-term dilution for KMP unitholders and KMR shareholders. The KMGP/KMR committee discussed with Baker Botts and Jefferies the tax treatment of the KMP merger and potential alternative structures. Following such discussion, the KMGP/KMR committee directed Baker Botts and Jefferies to further review the tax implications of the proposed Transactions and consider potential alternative tax structures. Jefferies then discussed the financial projections and the pro forma trading analysis provided by KMI and reviewed the discussions Jefferies had engaged in with KMI management regarding such projections and analyses and the operations and assets and the planned capital program of the various entities. Jefferies then provided a presentation of its financial analyses performed to date, including (i) an implied premium analysis, (ii) a historical trading volume and price analysis, (iii) a review of analyst projections, (iv) an analysis of the historical trading discount of KMR shares relative to KMP common units, (v) a comparable company yield analysis, (vi) a discounted cash flow analysis, (vii) a historical exchange ratio analysis, (viii) a premiums paid analysis and (ix) an analysis of weighted average cost of capital. The KMGP/KMR committee also discussed with its advisors the relative ownership of KMP and KMR equity holders in the pro forma entity.
The KMGP/KMR committee then engaged in a discussion with its advisors regarding making a counterproposal to KMI requesting additional merger consideration payable to KMP unitholders and KMR shareholders. Following such discussion, the KMGP/KMR committee directed Mr. Hultquist and Mr. Peter Bowden of Jefferies to meet with representatives of KMI to propose that (i) KMI increase the KMP and KMR merger consideration to $11.77 in cash (which represented a $1.00 increase to the cash consideration offered by KMI on July 17) and an exchange ratio of 2.162 for each KMP common unit (with an equivalent all-stock offer of 2.4813 shares of KMI common stock for each KMR share), (ii) the 2.162 exchange ratio be fixed as of that date and not adjusted on the basis of fluctuations in the trading values of any of the relevant entities during the period preceding the execution of definitive agreements with respect to the proposed Transactions, (iii) KMP unitholders be given a choice to elect between all stock consideration, all cash consideration and a mix of cash and stock consideration and (iv) the KMGP/KMR committee would be willing to accept such revised merger consideration subject to any changes to the EPB merger consideration. The KMGP/KMR committee's decision to propose an increase in the cash consideration payable in the KMP merger and to propose that each KMP unitholder could elect to receive all cash or all KMI stock or a combination of cash and stock as determined by the unitholder, was specifically to provide KMP unitholders the option of electing additional cash consideration to satisfy tax obligations resulting from the KMP merger, as well as to
42
improve the overall consideration payable in the Transactions for both KMP unitholders and KMR shareholders. In determining to propose such increases and determining the amount of increases to be proposed, the KMGP/KMR committee considered the anticipated tax treatment and estimated tax obligations of KMP unitholders, the additional benefit to both KMP unitholders and KMR shareholders of the increased consideration, the elimination of incentive distributions, the impact on the balance sheet of the combined company of an increase in the cash consideration payable in the Transaction, and that the initial KMI proposal was attractive in light of the various issues facing KMP, including with respect to the burden on its cost of capital due to incentive distributions, and was within a reasonable range of valuation as portrayed by the information and analyses provided by Jefferies. Following such discussion, representatives of Jefferies left the room and the KMGP/KMR committee discussed with Baker Botts and Morris Nichols issues relating to the derivative claims that had been filed on behalf of KMP with respect to allocations of capital expenditures.
Following the KMGP/KMR committee meeting on July 30, Messrs. Hultquist and Bowden met with Mr. Dax Sanders, Vice President of Corporate Development for KMI, and proposed the changes discussed at the KMGP/KMR committee meeting earlier that day.
Also on July 30, 2014, the members of the EPGP conflicts committee met with representatives from TPH, Vinson & Elkins and Richards Layton. At the meeting, representatives of TPH reviewed with the EPGP conflicts committee members the preliminary financial analysis together with supplementary materials that had been completed by TPH with respect to the proposed EPB merger, and circulated to the EPGP conflicts committee members prior to the meeting, which included (i) a comparable companies multiples analysis with respect to both EPB on a standalone basis and KMI on a pro forma basis for the Transactions, (ii) a comparable transaction analysis, (iii) a discounted cash flow analysis, (iv) a present value of future share price analysis, (v) a relative contribution analysis, (vi) a premiums paid analysis and (vii) an analysis of the pro forma financial impacts of the EPB merger and the Transactions. The EPGP conflicts committee members discussed the assumptions underlying the analyses and the basis therefor with their advisors, including (i) the companies selected as comparable to EPB and pro forma KMI, and the reasons for their selection, as well as the EPGP conflicts committee's view that each of the companies selected was distinguishable from the pro forma combined company in ways that could be material to the analysis, (ii) the transactions selected as comparable to the EPB merger, and the fact that the unique aspects of the proposed transactions resulted in a set of comparable transactions that were each distinguishable at least to some extent from the proposed EPB merger and (iii) the assumptions utilized by TPH in determining EPB's and the combined company's costs of capital.
TPH also reviewed with the EPGP conflicts committee members, at their request, their discussions with KMI management regarding the standalone financial projections for EPB, KMP and KMI and the pro forma financial projections for KMI. Among other things, TPH indicated that KMI management had confirmed the same financial projections had been shared with each of KMP and KMR, and that such projections were substantially the same as those provided to the rating agencies by KMI as it conducted diligence on the likely credit ratings that would be assigned to the pro forma combined company. The EPGP conflicts committee members discussed at length the importance of the pro forma financial projections in evaluating the benefits of the proposed EPB merger, and the necessity of fully understanding the assumptions underlying such projections.
Also during this meeting, representatives from Vinson & Elkins updated the EPGP conflicts committee regarding its negotiations with Weil regarding the EPB merger agreement and the outstanding key issues in the revised draft that Weil had distributed to Vinson & Elkins, which included, among other things, (i) the completion of the KMP merger and KMR merger as a mutual closing condition (to which KMI had agreed), (ii) a "majority of the unaffiliated votes cast" threshold for the EPB unitholder approval of the proposed EPB merger (which KMI had rejected and indicated that it was not willing to proceed with a transaction that included such a requirement) and a voting agreement by Mr. Kinder with respect to the KMI stockholder approvals (to which KMI and
43
Mr. Kinder had agreed), (iii) the EPGP conflicts committee's right to change its recommendation with respect to the proposed EPB merger to the extent necessary to meet its obligations under the EPB partnership agreement or applicable law (to which KMI had agreed), with no termination fee or other costs payable by EPB (which KMI had rejected), including in the event the EPB merger agreement were amended or waived (which KMI had rejected) and (iv) restrictions on the ability of KMI and EPGP to alter the composition of the EPGP conflicts committee prior to the termination of the EPB merger agreement (which KMI had rejected). After discussion, the EPGP conflicts committee determined that each of the issues discussed that had been rejected by KMI was important to EPB and that the EPGP conflicts committee was not prepared to concede to any of such issues. The EPGP conflicts committee instructed its advisors to prepare a revised draft of the EPB merger agreement and to negotiate its terms consistent with those instructions.
In the afternoon of July 30, 2014, representatives of Vinson & Elkins and members of senior management of KMI also had a due diligence call regarding certain regulatory and litigation matters, including derivative claims that had been filed on behalf of EPB.
Later that day, representatives of Weil sent a revised draft of the KMP merger agreement to Baker Botts, which implemented the changes discussed between representatives of Weil and Baker Botts on July 29. In addition, the revised draft provided for a termination fee equal to 3.5% of the equity value of KMP payable by KMP to KMI and an unspecified termination fee payable by KMI to KMP in certain circumstances through a waiver of a portion of KMGP's incentive distributions in light of certain tax requirements that a certain percentage of KMP's gross income be treated as "qualifying income" for tax purposes.
On July 31, 2014, the KMGP/KMR committee met with representatives of Baker Botts. The KMGP/KMR committee and Baker Botts discussed potential additional analyses to be performed by Jefferies, including with respect to projected trading prices of KMI common stock following the proposed Transactions and the relative credit profiles of KMP as a standalone company and KMI following the proposed Transactions. Baker Botts reviewed the revisions to the KMP merger agreement sent by Weil to Baker Botts on July 30. Following a discussion of such revisions, the KMGP/KMR committee directed Baker Botts to continue to negotiate with Weil with respect to (i) KMI's interim operating covenants, (ii) the requirement that a majority of the unitholders of KMP other than KMI and its affiliates vote in favor of the merger agreements, (iii) the limitation on KMI's ability to revoke or diminish the KMGP/KMR committee's authority and (iv) the KMGP/KMR committee's prior proposal with respect to termination fees. The KMGP/KMR committee agreed to accept Mr. Kinder's proposal that the support agreement to vote his KMI common stock in favor of the proposals at the KMI stockholders' meeting would fall away in the event of an adverse KMI board recommendation.
On July 31, 2014, Mr. Sanders communicated a revised proposal to Mr. Hultquist and representatives of Jefferies of $10.77 in cash and an exchange ratio of 2.1889 for each KMP common unit and a corresponding exchange ratio of 2.4787 for each KMR share, which represented KMI accepting the proposed increase to the overall amount of consideration as proposed by Mr. Hultquist on July 30th with the increase in total consideration coming in the form of additional KMI common stock instead of additional cash as had been requested by Mr. Hultquist on July 30th. The increase in total consideration was provided in the form of additional KMI common stock rather than additional cash to limit the amount of indebtedness KMI would need to raise to finance the Transactions. Mr. Sanders noted that KMI was willing to provide KMP unitholders with a choice to elect the form of consideration, subject to proration, and that there could be no assurance at such time as to what the maximum exchange ratio would be for the EPB merger.
Later that day, Mr. Sanders spoke with Ronald Kuehn, a member of the EPGP conflicts committee, regarding the proposed Transactions and the status of negotiations with the EPGP conflicts committee, the KMGP conflicts committee and the KMR special committee. Mr. Sanders advised Mr. Kuehn that he expected that the most recent proposed exchange ratio from KMP would be an
44
exchange ratio that management would recommend to the KMI board for approval. Mr. Sanders also informed Mr. Kuehn that KMI was focused on proceeding as quickly as possible with negotiations on the economic terms of the proposed EPB merger. Mr. Kuehn informed Mr. Sanders that the EPGP conflicts committee viewed the consideration payable to KMP unitholders and KMR shareholders as linked to the EPB consideration, given the nature of the Transactions, and indicated that he expected that the terms proposed by KMI for the EPB merger would be modified to reflect any agreement on a change in the premium agreed to between KMP or KMR and KMI. Mr. Kuehn reported that Mr. Sanders would not confirm the implications, if any, of the KMI/KMP negotiations on the proposed economic terms for the EPB merger, but that he would respond to Mr. Kuehn after he had discussed the matter internally.
Later on July 31, 2014, Vinson & Elkins distributed a revised draft EPB merger agreement to Weil, which draft reflected the position of the EPGP conflicts committee as of the July 30, 2014 committee meeting, as well as a request for certain additional documents and conference calls to support legal due diligence of the proposed EPB merger.
During the morning of August 1, 2014, the EPGP conflicts committee met with representatives from TPH, Vinson & Elkins and Richards Layton. During the meeting, the members of the EPGP conflicts committee discussed Mr. Kuehn's conversation with Mr. Sanders the prior evening, as well as economic aspects of the proposed EPB merger and strategies with respect to the negotiation of the appropriate exchange ratio assuming the EPGP conflicts committee determined to proceed with the proposed EPB merger. The EPGP conflicts committee members also discussed outstanding diligence items and additional financial analysis that needed to be completed prior to negotiating an appropriate exchange ratio.
On August 1, 2014, Messrs. Sanders and DeVeau discussed with Mr. Hultquist and representatives of Jefferies the timeline for the proposed Transactions and KMI's revised proposal to EPB based on the revised proposal made to KMP. Messrs. Sanders and DeVeau then spoke with Mr. Kuehn to provide him with additional details as to the status of KMI's negotiations with KMP and KMR, including that KMP had proposed an increase in the value of the merger consideration payable to KMP unitholders that would result in an implied premium of 12.5% to KMP unitholders based on the trading prices of KMP common units and KMI common stock on July 29, 2014. Messrs. Sanders and DeVeau also indicated to Mr. Kuehn that KMI would also modify the economic proposal to EPB to provide for an implied premium of 12.5% to EPB unitholders based on July 29, 2014 trading prices, such that EPB unitholders would receive $4.65 in cash and an exchange ratio of 0.9142 for each EPB common unit. Mr. Kuehn informed Messrs. Sanders and DeVeau that he would communicate the revised proposal to his fellow EPGP conflicts committee members and advisors.
On August 1, 2014, representatives of Baker Botts sent a revised draft of the KMP merger agreement to Weil, which provided for, among other things, the requirement for approval of the KMP merger agreement by a majority of the KMP unitholders excluding KMI and its affiliates, additional representations and warranties of KMI, a limitation on KMI's ability to revoke or diminish the KMGP/KMR committee's authority, interim operating covenants applicable to KMI's operations between signing and closing and removal of the termination fees entirely (or, in the alternative, payment of termination fees in reciprocal circumstances). In addition, on that same day, representatives of Vinson & Elkins sent a revised draft EPB merger agreement to Weil, which provided for, among other things, the requirement that the EPB merger agreement be approved by a majority of the EPB unitholders excluding EPGP and its affiliates and the removal of any termination fee payable by EPB to KMI.
In a series of two meetings on the evening of August 1, 2014, the EPGP conflicts committee met with representatives of TPH, Vinson & Elkins and Richards Layton to discuss the terms of the revised KMI proposal, including the fact that, due to a larger relative decline in the trading price of EPB common units as compared to KMP common units and KMR common shares during the period from
45
July 16, 2014 (the reference date for the initial KMI proposal) and July 29, 2014 (the reference date for the revised KMI proposal), the revised KMI proposal resulted in a decrease in the pro forma ownership of the combined company by the public EPB unitholders from 6.05% to 5.94%, and a decrease in the exchange ratio for the stock component of the merger consideration from 0.9337 of a share of KMI common stock for each EPB common unit to 0.9142 of a share of KMI common stock for each EPB common unit. The EPGP conflicts committee members authorized TPH to contact Mr. Sanders and indicate that the EPGP conflicts committee believed that the revised KMI proposal did not result in a comparable increase in the proposed value of the merger consideration payable to EPB unitholders, when compared to KMP unitholders, and that a comparable increase would result in an exchange ratio of 0.9451 of a share of KMI common stock for each EPB common unit and $4.65 in cash for each EPB common unit, with the public EPB unitholders holding 6.12% of the combined company. On the night of August 1, 2014, representatives from TPH communicated this response to Mr. Sanders.
Also on August 1, 2014, members of senior management of KMI had a supplemental discussion with representatives of TPH regarding tax aspects of the proposed EPB merger.
On August 3, 2014, representatives of Baker Botts sent a revised draft of the KMR merger agreement to Weil implementing certain changes applicable solely to KMR, and noting that the changes made to the KMP agreement sent by Baker Botts to Weil on August 1 should be made to the KMR merger agreement.
On the morning of August 4, 2014, the EPGP conflicts committee met with representatives of TPH, Vinson & Elkins and Richards Layton to discuss TPH's financial analysis with respect to the revised proposal made by KMI on August 1, which contained similar substantive financial analysis to the preliminary analysis presented on July 30, 2014. TPH led the discussion of the financial analysis and responded to a number of questions regarding the analysis. Following further discussion, the EPGP conflicts committee members, based in part upon the analysis, determined that, subject to further diligence of the growth prospects and expected trading yield, credit rating and cost of capital of the combined company, the proposed EPB merger could likely be economically advantageous to holders of EPB common units as compared to the status quo of continuing to operate as a stand-alone entity controlled by KMI. The EPGP conflicts committee members determined, however, to defer making any counterproposal until after a diligence session with KMI management on the forecasts for the combined company scheduled for that afternoon.
Later on August 4, 2014, representatives of Weil and Baker Botts had a conference call in which Weil informed Baker Botts that KMI was not willing to proceed with a transaction that included a requirement that the KMP merger be approved by a majority of the KMP unitholders excluding KMI and its affiliates. Later that day, representatives of Weil sent Baker Botts and Vinson & Elkins revised merger agreements, both of which included a cash/stock election mechanism and limited each board's ability to change its recommendation to instances in which there was a "superior proposal" or an "intervening event" and limited the circumstances in which a termination fee would be payable to those instances in which change in recommendation had occurred due to a superior proposal (as opposed to an intervening event).
Also on August 4, 2014, representatives of Jefferies met with senior management of KMI to discuss the projected tax implications of the proposed transaction and Jefferies requested additional information with respect to (i) KMI's step-up in basis for KMP's and EPB's assets as a result of the proposed Transactions, (ii) the projected tax depreciation resulting from the transaction as proposed (a taxable transaction to KMP and EPB unitholders) and that would result from a transaction that was non-taxable to KMP and EPB unitholders and (iii) the projected tax implications to KMP unitholders.
On the afternoon of August 4, 2014, the EPGP conflicts committee met with Messrs. Kean, DeVeau and Sanders and Ms. Dang from KMI, as well as representatives from TPH and Vinson & Elkins, to review with KMI management certain key assumptions underlying management's projections
46
for the combined company, including (i) the backlog of growth projects and expected timing thereof, (ii) the credit ratings and costs of capital of the combined company, (iii) the trading yield of the combined company and (iv) the expected growth rate of dividends and EBITDA of the combined company. During and following the presentation, the EPGP conflicts committee members and their representatives asked questions of the KMI representatives regarding these assumptions. During the diligence session, Mr. Sanders also confirmed for the EPGP conflicts committee members that there had been no change in the economic terms proposed by KMI to either KMP or KMR since the revised proposal made to the EPGP conflicts committee on August 1.
Following the conclusion of the diligence session, the EPGP conflicts committee met, together with representatives from TPH and Vinson & Elkins, to discuss the substance of the diligence session, as well as the appropriate counterproposal to KMI. The EPGP conflicts committee members discussed their view of the assumptions underlying KMI management projections based upon the diligence completed by the EPGP conflicts committee and its advisors, including the immediately preceding session with KMI management, and their general agreement that the proposed EPB merger would be economically beneficial to holders of EPB common units compared to the status quo of continuing to operate as a standalone entity controlled by KMI. Vinson & Elkins also reviewed with the EPGP conflicts committee members certain key issues in the revised merger agreement received from Weil earlier that day, including that (i) the draft imposed restrictions on the ability of the EPGP conflicts committee to change its recommendation of the proposed EPB merger in circumstances in which there was not a superior proposal or intervening event, (ii) the draft permitted KMI to vote its EPB common units (representing approximately 40% of the outstanding EPB common units) against the proposed EPB merger in the event the KMI board were to change its recommendation of the proposals related to the proposed EPB merger, (iii) EPB would be obligated to pay to KMI a termination fee in the event that the EPGP conflicts committee or EPGP board were to change its recommendation in connection with a superior proposal, (iv) the EPB merger would not be subject to the approval of holders of a majority of the EPB common units held by unaffiliated EPB unitholders that actually vote on the proposed EPB merger, as had been proposed by EPB and (v) KMI would have the ability to amend the KMP merger agreement or KMR merger agreement even in ways that affected the value of the EPB merger consideration.
After discussion, the EPGP conflicts committee authorized the representatives from TPH and Vinson & Elkins to contact Mr. Sanders and representatives of Weil to deliver a counterproposal, with the following key terms: (i) each public EPB unitholder would receive 0.958 of a share of KMI common stock and $4.65 cash for each EPB common unit owned, which would represent an implied 12.5% premium using trading prices as of July 16, and a 17% premium using trading prices as of August 1; and (ii) four key issues in the EPB merger agreement were favorably resolved, including that (A) the EPGP conflicts committee would have an unfettered ability to change its recommendation of the proposed EPB merger if it determined the proposed EPB merger was no longer in the best interests of EPB, for any reason, and such a change in recommendation by the EPGP conflicts committee would invalidate and rescind any prior "Special Approval" of the EPB merger agreement and the EPB merger, (B) KMI agree to vote its EPB common units (representing approximately 40% of the outstanding EPB common units) in favor of the EPB merger in all circumstances, unless the EPGP conflicts committee or EPGP board changed its recommendation of the proposed EPB merger, (C) EPB would not be obligated to pay to KMI a termination fee for any reason, including a change in recommendation by the EPGP conflicts committee and (D) KMI would not be permitted to amend the KMP merger agreement or KMR merger agreement in ways that affected the value of the EPB merger consideration, without the consent of the EPGP board. If these issues were favorably resolved, the EPGP conflicts committee indicated it could accept the inclusion of the "force the vote" construct and the removal of the "majority of the unaffiliated votes cast" condition.
47
On the evening of August 4, 2014, representatives from TPH contacted Mr. Sanders to communicate the terms of the counterproposal, which Mr. Sanders indicated would not be acceptable to KMI.
On August 5, 2014, Mr. Sanders spoke with representatives of TPH and presented a revised proposal of $4.65 in cash and 0.9451 of a share of KMI common stock for each EPB common unit, as KMI's best and final offer and noted that the revised proposal would need to be discussed with the KMGP conflicts committee, the KMR special committee and their advisors. Mr. Sanders also expressed that KMI would attempt to resolve each of the four key issues in the EPB merger agreement identified by EPB the prior evening in a manner satisfactory to the parties, but that he had not yet presented this revised proposal with respect to EPB to the KMGP conflicts committee.
Following the call from Mr. Sanders, the EPGP conflicts committee members met with representatives from TPH, Vinson & Elkins and Richards Layton to discuss the terms of the counterproposal. After discussion as to the benefits of the proposed EPB merger to the unaffiliated EPB unitholders as compared to EPB remaining as a standalone company, and the EPGP conflicts committee members' view that it was extremely unlikely that KMI would agree to offer a higher implied premium to holders of EPB common units than KMP common units, the EPGP conflicts committee concluded that the economic terms of the counterproposal were acceptable, subject to (i) confirmation of the economic and legal terms of the KMP merger and KMR merger and (ii) finalization of the transaction documents in a manner acceptable to the EPGP conflicts committee and consistent with the positions relayed to KMI the prior evening.
After discussion with the EPGP conflicts committee, representatives of TPH called Mr. Sanders to confirm that KMI's revised proposal was acceptable to the EPGP conflicts committee assuming the proposal for KMP and KMR was finalized on the terms previously discussed ($10.77 in cash and an exchange ratio of 2.1889 for each KMP common unit and a corresponding exchange ratio of 2.4787 for each KMR share) and that the terms of the merger agreement were satisfactorily finalized. Mr. Sanders then spoke with representatives of Jefferies to update them on the status of discussions with the EPGP conflicts committee.
Following the discussion between Mr. Sanders and Jefferies, the KMGP/KMR committee met with Baker Botts and Jefferies to discuss the revised EPB merger consideration. Jefferies discussed the relative ownership of KMP, KMR and EPB equity holders in the pro forma entity based on the revised EPB merger consideration, and the KMGP/KMR committee determined that Messrs. Hultquist and Bowden would present a counterproposal to Mr. Sanders for $10.77 in cash and an exchange ratio of 2.1973 for each KMP common unit and a corresponding exchange ratio of 2.4891 for each KMR share, which would result in a percentage ownership in the pro forma entity for KMP and KMR equity holders equal to the ownership that would have resulted prior to the increase in the EPB merger consideration.
Following the KMGP/KMR committee meeting, Mr. Bowden presented the revised proposal to Mr. Sanders, which KMI rejected. Mr. Hultquist then spoke with Messrs. Kinder and Sanders and insisted on an increase in the stock portion of the merger consideration in the KMP merger and the exchange ratio in the KMR merger in order for the KMGP/KMR committee to approve the transaction. The KMGP/KMR committee met again with representatives of Baker Botts and Jefferies to discuss Mr. Bowden's and Mr. Hultquist's conversations with representatives of KMI and determined to present a revised proposal which effectively split the difference between the prior agreed KMP and KMR merger consideration and the proposal relayed to KMI earlier in the day. Following such meeting, Mr. Bowden spoke with Mr. Sanders and proposed an exchange ratio of 2.1931 for the stock portion of the KMP merger consideration (with a corresponding increase in the KMR exchange ratio to 2.4849).
Mr. Sanders then contacted representatives from TPH to communicate that KMI had agreed to an increase in the consideration to be received by KMP unitholders and KMR shareholders compared to
48
the proposal made by KMI on August 1, specifically that KMP unitholders would receive 2.1931 shares of KMI stock and $10.77 in cash for each KMP common unit and KMR shareholders would receive 2.4849 shares of KMI common stock for each KMR listed share.
In response to the update from Mr. Sanders, the EPGP conflicts committee met that evening with representatives from TPH, Vinson & Elkins and Richards Layton. TPH reviewed with the EPGP conflicts committee the effect of the modification to the terms of the KMP merger and KMR merger on the value of the consideration to be received by EPB unitholders, specifically that the pro forma ownership of former public EPB unitholders in the combined company would decrease slightly, but still equal, in both cases, approximately 6.12%, and that there would be a dilutive impact of approximately $4 million spread across all public EPB unitholders. The EPGP conflicts committee determined the modifications were immaterial and acceptable, subject to satisfactorily finalizing the merger agreement and completing the due diligence items that remained outstanding. Members of senior management of KMI then spoke separately with Mr. Hultquist and representatives of Jefferies and the parties each confirmed that it was willing to proceed with a proposal of $10.77 in cash and an exchange ratio of 2.1931 for each KMP common unit and a corresponding exchange ratio of 2.4849 for each KMR share, subject to satisfactorily finalizing the merger agreement and completing the due diligence items that remained outstanding.
On August 5, 2014, representatives of Baker Botts had a due diligence call with members of KMI senior management regarding certain legal matters.
On August 6, 2014, representatives of Vinson & Elkins had a due diligence call with members of KMI senior management and representatives of Weil regarding certain legal matters.
On August 7, 2014, the KMGP/KMR committee met with representatives of Baker Botts, Morris Nichols and Jefferies. Baker Botts provided a review of the then current terms of the KMP and KMR merger agreements, including certain improvements in the terms compared with the initial drafts distributed by Weil on July 21, and discussed the remaining open issues with respect to the merger agreements. Baker Botts also summarized its legal diligence review. Representatives of Baker Botts reviewed the status and merits of the derivative claims that had been filed on behalf of KMP with respect to allocations of capital expenditures, and the KMGP/KMR committee engaged in a discussion with respect thereto. The KMGP/KMR committee asked representatives of Baker Botts to discuss the tax aspects of the proposed Transactions, and representatives of Baker Botts reviewed the proposed tax treatment as well as possible alternative tax-free structures for the KMP merger and related matters. Jefferies then provided a presentation discussing the relative ownership of KMP, KMR and EPB in the combined entity based on the incremental changes in merger consideration, a relative contribution analysis, various other financial analyses and potential alternative transactions, including KMP acquiring KMI and EPB, KMP acquiring EPB, KMI providing incremental incentive distribution waivers in connection with KMP acquisitions, a permanent reset or elimination of incentive distributions, potential strategic alternatives regarding one of KMP's business units, and an equity investment in KMP by a third party. Jefferies also provided a comparable company yield analysis, a pro forma KMI yield analysis, an analysis of pro forma capital flexibility and a discounted cash flow analysis. At the prior request of the KMGP/KMR committee, Jefferies evaluated such strategic alternatives and performed various analyses using data supplied by KMI. Jefferies discussed the advantages involved with each alternative, including that (i) KMP's acquiring KMI and/or EPB would result in a simplified organizational structure and that an acquisition of KMI would remove the burden on KMP's cost of capital resulting from KMP's incentive distributions, (ii) a permanent reset or elimination of KMP's incentive distributions could be effected in a cash flow neutral manner in the short term and (iii) an equity investment in KMP by a third party might improve market confidence in KMP. In each case, however, Jefferies identified the significant difficulties involved and flaws associated with each alternative, including that (i) none of the alternatives would result in the significant tax savings from a stepped-up basis in the underlying assets and resulting increase in cash available for growth by acquisition and/or distributions to equity holders in the combined business that would be accomplished
49
by the proposed Transactions, (ii) KMP's acquiring KMI and/or EPB would be highly dilutive to KMP unitholders, (iii) KMP's acquiring KMI would result in material tax inefficiencies, (iv) KMI's providing incremental incentive distribution waivers in connection with KMP acquisitions did not provide a long-term solution to KMP's cost of capital concerns, (v) the KMGP/KMR committee's belief that KMI would not be willing to effect a permanent reset or elimination of KMP's incentive distributions due to the significant long-term reduction in value to KMI's shareholders that would result, (vi) potential strategic alternatives involving KMP's CO2 business unit may not result in an acceptable valuation based on Jefferies' review of multiples for similar businesses, would not provide a long-term solution to KMP's cost of capital concerns, and could significantly impair KMP's cash available for distribution because investing the proceeds from the sale of such business unit into higher growth midstream acquisitions would likely require a much higher purchase multiple and a resultant loss in EBITDA, and (vii) a validating equity investment in KMP by a third party, which transactions are typically employed by distressed companies lacking efficient access to public equity markets or companies with higher funding costs than KMP, would not solve KMP's cost of capital concerns and could not likely be achieved on better terms than those available to KMP through ordinary course equity issuance in the public markets. The KMGP/KMR committee was not authorized to conduct an auction process or other solicitation of interest from third parties for the acquisition of KMP or KMR. Nevertheless, the KMGP/KMR committee discussed this limitation on its authority, as well as the substance and practicality of conducting an auction or soliciting interest from third parties. KMI had indicated that it was interested only in acquiring KMP common units and KMR shares it did not already own and that it was not interested in disposing of its controlling interest in KMP to a third party at such time. The KMGP/KMR committee determined that, because KMI indirectly controls KMP and KMR and that KMI was not interested in disposing of its interest, it was unrealistic to expect a third party acquisition proposal or offer, whether solicited or unsolicited, for the assets or control of KMP or KMR, and it was thus unlikely that the KMGP/KMR committee could conduct a meaningful auction for the acquisition of the assets or control of KMP or KMR and unlikely that any such auction, if conducted, would result in a material benefit for KMP unitholders or KMR shareholders. In addition, at the request of the KMGP/KMR committee and based on the guidance and pro forma tax information provided by KMI, Jefferies provided an analysis of pro forma KMI tax benefits and projected KMP unitholder tax implications.
Between August 6, 2014 and August 9, 2014, representatives of Weil, Baker Botts, Vinson & Elkins and Richards Layton held multiple conference calls and negotiated and finalized the terms of the merger agreements, including with respect to conforming the terms of the KMR merger agreement to the agreed upon terms of the KMP merger agreement and related disclosure schedules and support agreement.
On August 8, 2014, Weil also distributed to Vinson & Elkins drafts of the KMP merger agreement and KMR merger agreement, each of which were in near final form.
On August 8, 2014, the KMGP/KMR committee and representatives of Baker Botts and Morris Nichols met with members of senior management of KMI and a representative of Weil for a due diligence session regarding certain litigation matters, including derivative claims that had been filed on behalf of KMP with respect to allocations of capital expenditures, and financial matters. In addition, on August 8, 2014, representatives of TPH and Vinson & Elkins held a confirmatory bringdown due diligence session with members of senior management of KMI and representatives of Jefferies held a separate confirmatory bringdown due diligence session with members of senior management of KMI.
Later in the day, the KMGP/KMR committee met with representatives of Baker Botts, Morris Nichols and Jefferies. Jefferies provided a presentation as to fairness and confirmed that Jefferies would deliver a written fairness opinion at the KMGP/KMR committee meeting to be held on August 9 to approve the KMP and KMR mergers. Baker Botts discussed remaining open issues with respect to the KMP and KMR merger agreements, including the amount of termination fees and limitations on EPB equity issuances between signing and closing of the mergers.
50
During the evening of August 8, Messrs. DeVeau and Hultquist discussed the proposed cap on EPB equity issuances between signing and closing of the proposed Transactions, after which discussions Mr. DeVeau relayed that KMI would accept the KMGP/KMR committee's proposed cap. In addition, the parties determined the final proposal resulting in the stock election, cash election and mixed election options for KMP and EPB by taking the existing proposals (in the case of KMP, $10.77 in cash and an exchange ratio of 2.1931 shares of KMI common stock for each KMP common unit and, in the case of EPB, $4.65 in cash and an exchange ratio of 0.9451 of a share of KMI common stock for each EPB common unit) and calculating the all-cash and all-stock value of such proposals based upon the July 16th closing price for KMI common stock, which was $36.91.
On the evening of August 8, 2014, the members of the EPGP conflicts committee held a telephonic meeting, which was also attended by representatives from TPH, Vinson & Elkins and Richards Layton. TPH provided an update to the EPGP conflicts committee on TPH's financial analysis regarding the EPB merger and noted that, despite the change to the KMP and KMR consideration, the materials and financial analyses had no material changes since TPH's last financial presentation to the EPGP conflicts committee on August 4, 2014. Vinson & Elkins summarized the material terms of the EPB merger agreement, the KMP merger agreement, the KMR merger agreement and the support agreement. Representatives from Vinson & Elkins and Richards Layton also reviewed with the EPGP conflicts committee the legal due diligence that had been completed. The legal due diligence report included a discussion of the status and merits of various derivative claims that had been filed on behalf of EPB with respect to challenges to prior asset drop-down transactions between EPB and KMI and EPB and El Paso Corporation (prior to its acquisition by KMI). The discussion noted that the EPGP conflicts committee had considered that (i) the members of the EPGP conflicts committee, given their positions on the EPGP board and the EPGP conflicts committee, had extensive prior familiarity with the nature of the derivative claims and the underlying asset drop-down transactions and factual assertions on which the claims are based; (ii) favorable decisions had been rendered by the trial court in connection with two of the pending derivative actions (although it was noted that such decisions may be subject to appeal); (iii) the advisors to the EPGP conflicts committee had discussions with KMI management and in-house legal counsel for KMI with respect to the status of and merits of the derivative lawsuits in connection with its review of the Transactions; and (iv) in light of the foregoing, the limited utility of any further third party analysis and/or valuation of the derivative claims was outweighed by the delay that such analysis would entail which could threaten the viability of the Transactions, and ultimately determined that the value of the claims to EPB that might be extinguished as a result of the EPB merger was not sufficiently material such that they would merit adjustments to the EPB merger consideration or otherwise affect the determinations made by the EPGP conflicts committee with respect to the EPB merger.
On the morning of August 9, 2014, the members of the EPGP conflicts committee met with representatives from TPH, Vinson & Elkins and Richards Layton. Vinson & Elkins provided the EPGP conflicts committee with an update on the EPB merger agreement, the KMP merger agreement, KMR merger agreement and the support agreement, each of which included no material changes since the meeting of the EPGP conflicts committee on August 8, 2014. Also at this meeting, TPH delivered to the EPGP conflicts committee an oral opinion, confirmed by delivery of a written opinion dated August 9, 2014 following the execution of the EPB merger agreement, to the effect that, as of that date and based upon and subject to the assumptions and qualifications and limitations and other matters set forth therein, from a financial point of view, the EPB merger consideration to be received by the unaffiliated EPB unitholders is fair from a financial point of view to the unaffiliated EPB unitholders.
51
After discussion and deliberation, the EPGP conflicts committee unanimously (i) determined that the EPB merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, EPB, after determining that the EPB merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, the unaffiliated EPB unitholders, (ii) approved, and recommended that the EPGP board approve, the EPB merger agreement, the execution, delivery and performance of the EPB merger agreement and the transactions contemplated by the EPB merger agreement and submit the EPB merger agreement to a vote of the EPB unitholders and (iii) resolved to recommend approval of the EPB merger agreement by the EPB unitholders.
Later in the morning on August 9, 2014, the members of the EPGP board met with Mr. DeVeau and representatives from Vinson & Elkins. The EPGP conflicts committee provided a report to the full EPGP board as to its determinations. Based upon the EPGP conflicts committee's recommendations, the EPGP board unanimously (i) determined that the EPB merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, EPB, after determining that the EPB merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, the unaffiliated EPB unitholders, (ii) approved the EPB merger agreement, the execution, delivery and performance of the EPB merger agreement and the transactions contemplated by the EPB merger agreement and (iii) resolved to submit the EPB merger agreement to a vote of the EPB unitholders and recommend approval of the EPB merger agreement by the EPB unitholders.
On August 9, 2014, Messrs. DeVeau and Hultquist met to discuss the provision in the KMP merger agreement providing for payment of any termination fee by KMI to KMP in the form of a reduction in future incentive distributions rather than cash. Mr. DeVeau explained that such provision was a result of the possible treatment of the fee as non-qualifying income for tax purposes, and Messrs. DeVeau and Hultquist agreed that such reduction would be effected over an eight-quarter period.
On August 9, 2014, the KMGP/KMR committee met with representatives of Baker Botts and Jefferies and determined to propose a mutual termination fee of 3.0% of equity value for each of KMI, KMP and KMR, with any KMI termination fee to be payable in the form of a reduction in future incentive distributions over an eight-quarter period. Representatives of Baker Botts called Weil to make such proposal, and representatives of Weil later confirmed that KMI was willing to accept such proposal.
On August 9, 2014, the KMGP board and the KMR board (in each case with Messrs. Kinder and Kean participating) held special meetings, with representatives of KMI, Baker Botts and Jefferies present, and unanimously voted to adopt formal resolutions delegating authority to the KMGP/KMR committee with respect to the KMP merger and KMR merger as previously approved on July 17.
Following the KMGP board and KMR board meeting, the KMGP/KMR committee met with representatives of Baker Botts and Jefferies. Representatives of Baker Botts reviewed the efforts made by the KMGP/KMR committee over the past month, including the substantive work and the processes followed. Representatives of Baker Botts noted that the KMGP/KMR committee had met frequently since the proposed terms were communicated to the KMGP/KMR committee. Representatives of Baker Botts also noted that all three KMGP/KMR committee members were present at substantially all of the KMGP/KMR committee meetings and that the KMGP/KMR committee members reviewed and thoroughly considered the relevant materials. Representatives of Baker Botts briefly reviewed the work conducted by the KMGP/KMR committee's advisors and noted that Jefferies stood ready to deliver its written fairness opinion. Mr. Hultquist summarized the extensive meetings held by the KMGP/KMR committee, and noted that the KMGP/KMR committee had examined the proposed Transactions in great depth and reviewed various documents prepared by Jefferies and Baker Botts. Mr. Hultquist noted that the members of the KMGP/KMR committee had, for a long time, considered the substantive issues that led to the original proposals being made by KMI and the discussions both publicly in the investment community and within the Kinder Morgan companies with respect to a combination of the Kinder Morgan companies in one form or another. Mr. Hultquist also noted the prior discussions between the KMGP/KMR committee and its advisors with respect to
52
Messrs. Gardner, Hultquist and Waughtal serving on both the KMGP conflicts committee and the KMR special committee and potential alternative approval structures with respect to the proposed transactions, and reviewed the reasons the KMGP/KMR committee determined not to pursue such alternative approval structures.
Mr. Bowden of Jefferies left the meeting and the KMGP/KMR committee discussed with Baker Botts the status and merits of the derivative claims that had been filed on behalf of KMP with respect to allocations of capital expenditures. The KMGP/KMR committee had considered, among other factors, that (i) Messrs. Gardner, Hultquist and Waughtal had extensive prior familiarity with the nature of the derivative claims and the underlying capital transactions and other factual assertions on which the claims are based from their service and work on the KMGP board and the KMR board; (ii) the KMGP/KMR committee had discussions with KMI management and counsel for KMI and the KMGP/KMR committee with respect to the status of and merits of the derivative lawsuits in connection with its review of the Transactions; and (iii) in light of the foregoing, the limited utility of any further third party analysis and/or valuation of the derivative claims was outweighed by the delay that such analysis would entail which could threaten the viability of the Transactions, and ultimately determined that the value of the claims to KMP that might be extinguished as a result of the KMP merger was not sufficiently material such that they would merit adjustments to the KMP merger consideration or otherwise affect the determinations made by the KMGP/KMR committee with respect to the KMP merger or the KMR merger. Following such discussion, Mr. Bowden rejoined the meeting. Mr. Hultquist then reviewed the principal reasons for the KMP and KMR mergers. Jefferies then delivered its written opinion to the effect that, as of August 9, 2014, and based upon and subject to the assumptions made, procedures followed, factors considered and limitations upon the review undertaken by Jefferies as set forth in its opinion, the KMR merger consideration was fair, from a financial point of view, to the KMR shareholders (other than KMI and its affiliates (other than KMR)) and the KMP merger consideration was fair, from a financial point of view, to KMP unitholders (other than KMI and its affiliates (other than KMP)).
The KMGP conflicts committee then unanimously (i) determined that the KMP merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, KMP, after determining that the KMP merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, the unaffiliated KMP unitholders, (ii) approved the KMP merger, the KMP merger agreement and the execution, delivery and performance of the KMP merger agreement, such approval constituting "Special Approval" as defined in the KMP partnership agreement, (iii) recommended that the KMGP board approve the KMP merger, the KMP merger agreement and the execution, delivery and performance of the KMP merger agreement, submit the KMP merger agreement to a vote of limited partners of KMP and recommend approval of the KMP merger agreement by the limited partners of KMP and (iv) recommended approval of the KMP merger agreement by the limited partners of KMP.
Following such determinations and approvals by the KMGP conflicts committee, the KMR special committee unanimously (i) determined that, in accordance with Section 5.7(c) of KMR's limited liability company agreement, the KMR merger is fair, taking into account the totality of the relationships between the parties involved, including other transactions between the parties, (ii) determined that the KMR merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, KMR, after determining that the KMR merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, the unaffiliated KMR shareholders, (iii) approved the KMR merger, the KMR merger agreement and the execution, delivery and performance of the KMR merger agreement, (iv) recommended that the KMR board approve the KMR merger, the KMR merger agreement and the execution, delivery and performance of the KMR merger agreement, submit the KMR merger agreement to a vote of the KMR shareholders and recommend approval of the KMR merger agreement by the KMR shareholders and (v) recommended approval of the KMR merger agreement by the KMR shareholders. Section 5.7(c) of KMR's limited liability company agreement provides that a transaction between KMR and its affiliates is not void if the transaction is fair, taking into account the totality of the relationships between the parties involved,
53
including other transactions between the parties, as determined in the sole discretion of the KMR board. For purposes of such determination, the KMR special committee considered, among other things, the various transactions contemplated between KMI, KMP, the KMP unitholders, KMR, the KMR shareholders, EPB and the EPB unitholders in connection with the proposed Transactions.
Following the KMGP/KMR committee meeting, the KMGP board held a special meeting with representatives of KMI, Baker Botts and Jefferies present. Based on the KMGP conflicts committee's recommendation, the KMGP board (with Messrs. Kinder and Kean abstaining) (i) determined that the KMP merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, KMP, after determining that the KMP merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, the unaffiliated KMP unitholders, (ii) approved the KMP merger, the KMP merger agreement and the execution, delivery and performance of the KMP merger agreement, (iii) directed that the KMP merger agreement be submitted to a vote of limited partners of KMP and (iv) recommended approval of the KMP merger agreement by the limited partners of KMP.
Following the KMGP board meeting, the KMR board held a special meeting with representatives of KMI, Baker Botts and Jefferies present. The KMR board (with Messrs. Kinder and Kean abstaining), (i) determined that the KMP merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, KMP, after determining that KMP merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, the unaffiliated KMP unitholders, (ii) approved the KMP merger, the KMP merger agreement and the execution, delivery and performance of the KMP merger agreement, (iii) directed that the KMP merger agreement be submitted to a vote of limited partners of KMP and (iv) recommended approval of the KMP merger agreement by the limited partners of KMP. Based on the KMR special committee's recommendation, the KMR board (with Messrs. Kinder and Kean abstaining) (i) determined that the KMR merger is fair, taking into account the totality of the relationships between the parties involved, including other transactions between the parties, (ii) determined that the KMR merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, KMR, after determining that the KMR merger is fair and reasonable to, and in the best interests of, the unaffiliated KMR shareholders, (iii) approved the KMR merger, the KMR merger agreement and the execution, delivery and performance of the KMR merger agreement, (iv) directed that the KMR merger agreement be submitted to a vote of KMR shareholders and (iv) recommended approval of the KMR merger agreement by the KMR shareholders. In addition, the KMR board (with Messrs. Kinder and Kean abstaining) resolved to recommend approval of the KMP merger agreement by the KMR shareholders for purposes of the vote of KMR shares with respect to determining how KMP i-units will be voted at the KMP unitholder meeting with respect to the approval of the KMP merger agreement.
On August 9, 2014, the KMI board held a special board meeting attended by all members of the KMI board, as well as members of management and representatives of Barclays Capital, Citi and Weil. Members of senior management of KMI reviewed with the KMI board the legal and financial terms of the proposed Transactions, including a discussion of the debt financing contemplated for the proposed Transactions, and the principal benefits of the proposed Transactions. For a discussion of such principal benefits of the Transactions, see "KMI Parties' Purpose and Reasons for the Merger." Prior to the presentations of Citi and Barclays Capital, Mr. DeVeau reviewed with the KMI board information regarding material relationships with the entities involved in the proposed Transactions that had been provided by each of Citi and Barclays Capital. Mr. DeVeau discussed potential conflicts of interest with the KMI board and members of management, and it was agreed that there were no material conflicts of interest. Citi provided the KMI board with updated financial and market perspectives regarding KMI and the potential pro forma financial impact of the proposed Transactions on KMI. Barclays Capital presented its financial analyses regarding the consideration payable in the Transactions and delivered its oral opinion to the KMI board, which was confirmed by delivery of a written opinion dated August 9, 2014, that, as of such date and based upon and subject to the limitations and assumptions set forth therein, the merger consideration to be paid by KMI pursuant to the EPB merger agreement, the KMP merger agreement and the KMR merger agreement was fair, from a financial point of view, to KMI.
54
Following review and discussion among the members of the KMI board, the KMI board unanimously determined that the merger agreements and the transactions contemplated by the merger agreements were advisable and in the best interests of KMI stockholders, and the KMI directors unanimously voted to approve the merger agreements and the transactions contemplated by the merger agreements and recommend that KMI stockholders approve the stock issuance proposal and the charter amendment proposal.
On August 9, 2014, the merger agreements and related transaction documents were executed by the parties and on August 10, 2014, KMI, KMP, KMR and EPB issued a joint press release announcing the Transactions.
Relationship of the Parties to the Transactions
We conduct most of our business through KMP and EPB. For 2013, distributions from KMP and EPB represented approximately 87% of the sum of total cash generated by (i) distributions payable to us by these two partnerships (on a declared basis) and (ii) distributable cash generated by assets we own and our share of cash generated by our joint venture investments.
We directly and indirectly own approximately 43 million units of KMP. These units, which consist of approximately 22 million common units, 5 million Class B units and 16 million i-units (corresponding to the number of KMR shares owned by us), represent approximately 10% of the total outstanding limited partner interests of KMP. We also indirectly own all of the common stock of KMGP, the general partner of KMP, which owns an effective 2% interest in KMP and its operating partnerships and the right to receive incentive distributions from KMP pursuant to KMP's partnership agreement. Together, these limited partner and general partner interests represent approximately 12% of KMP's total equity interests and an approximate 50% economic interest in KMP, as a result of the incentive distributions.
KMGP has delegated to KMR, subject to limited exceptions, all of its rights and powers to manage and control the business and affairs of KMP and its operating limited partnerships. KMGP also owns all of the voting shares of KMR, which are the only shares entitled to vote in the election of KMR's directors. KMR owns all of the outstanding i-units of KMP. We own approximately 16 million KMR shares, including, through KMGP, all of KMR's voting shares, representing approximately 13% of KMR's outstanding shares.
We indirectly own all of the membership interests in EPGP, which owns a 2% general partner interest in EPB, as well as approximately 40% of the outstanding common units of EPB and all of EPB's incentive distribution rights.
Certain of our executive officers and directors are also executive officers and directors of EPGP, KMGP and KMR. Richard D. Kinder and Steven J. Kean serve as members of the boards of directors of all four companies. The compensation received by our executive officers is paid to them in their capacities as executive officers of KMI, KMGP, KMR and EPGP, as applicable. KMR and KMGP have the same directors and executive officers.
Richard D. Kinder is a Director, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of KMI, KMR, KMGP and EPGP. He is the largest individual shareholder of KMI, beneficially owning approximately 23.6% of the outstanding shares of KMI common stock. Under KMI's shareholders agreement, Mr. Kinder has the right to appoint five director nominees to KMI's board of directors. He also owns interests in KMR, KMP and EPB. Mr. Kinder was one of the members of KMI senior management authorized by the KMI board to represent KMI in negotiations with KMR, KMP and EPB. In addition, in connection with the KMR, KMP and EPB merger agreements, Mr. Kinder and a limited partnership he controls entered into a support agreement with each of those entities pursuant to which he and the limited partnership agreed to vote all of their shares of KMI common stock in favor of the KMI charter amendment proposal, the KMI stock issuance proposal and specified other matters. In the support
55
agreement, they also agreed not to transfer or dispose of their KMI common stock or take certain other actions, subject to limited exceptions. After the Transactions, Mr. Kinder will remain the largest individual shareholder of KMI, although his ownership percentage will be significantly reduced because of the issuance of KMI common stock in the Transactions. As a result of the Transactions, he will no longer own shares or units of KMR, KMP or EPB. He will continue to have his rights under the KMI shareholders agreement to appoint director nominees to the KMI board of directors, and he will continue to be a Director, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of KMI, KMR, KMGP and EPGP. Because of the potential conflicts arising from these interests, as discussed under "Background of the Transactions," Mr. Kinder recused himself from any deliberations regarding the Transactions at the boards of KMGP, KMR and EPGP.
Recommendation of Our Board of Directors and Its Reasons for the Transactions
At its meeting on August 9, 2014, our board of directors determined that the KMP merger agreement, the KMR merger agreement and the EPB merger agreement, and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the stock issuance and charter amendment, were in the best interests of KMI and our stockholders, and unanimously approved the merger agreements. Our board of directors recommends that KMI stockholders vote FOR the charter amendment proposal, FOR the stock issuance proposal and FOR the adjournment proposal. In evaluating the Transactions, our board of directors consulted with our management and legal and financial advisors and considered a number of factors. The decision of our board of directors was based upon a number of potential benefits of the Transactions and other factors that it believed would contribute to the success of the combined company, and thus benefit KMI stockholders, including the following factors, the order of which does not necessarily reflect their relative significance:
56
and market perspectives of Citi relating to KMI on a standalone basis and pro forma for the Transactions, with particular focus on KMI pro forma for the Transactions, as more fully described in this document under the heading "The TransactionsFinancial Analyses of Citigroup Global Markets Inc."
In addition, our board of directors also identified and considered several potentially negative factors to be balanced against the positive factors listed above, including the following, the order of which does not necessarily reflect their relative significance:
In view of the variety of factors and the quality and amount of information considered, as a whole did not find it practicable to and did not quantify or otherwise assign relative weights to the specific factors considered in reaching its determination but conducted an overall review of the Transactions. Individual members of our board of directors may have given different relative considerations to different factors.
The explanation of the reasoning of our board of directors and certain information presented in this section are forward-looking in nature and, therefore, the information should be read in light of the factors discussed in the section entitled "Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements."
57
Projected Financial Information
Set forth below is a summary of certain projected financial information, referred to as "management projections," that was prepared by KMI management and furnished to the KMI board, the KMGP conflicts committee, the KMR special committee and the EPGP conflicts committee for purposes of evaluating the proposed Transactions. This projected financial information was also provided to the financial advisors for use in connection with their respective financial analyses and, if applicable, opinion.
(in millions, except per share amounts) |
2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
KMP EBITDA(1) |
$ | 6,561 | $ | 7,491 | $ | 8,191 | $ | 9,546 | $ | 10,023 | $ | 10,524 | |||||||
EPB EBITDA(1) |
1,240 | 1,249 | 1,441 | 1,499 | 1,574 | 1,653 | |||||||||||||
KMI Standalone EBITDA(2) |
212 | 191 | 201 | 200 | 200 | 200 | |||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Combined enterprise EBITDA |
$ | 8,013 | $ | 8,931 | $ | 9,834 | $ | 11,245 | $ | 11,797 | $ | 12,377 | |||||||
KMP Status Quo Distributable Cash Flow Per Unit(3) |
$ | 5.73 | $ | 6.15 | $ | 6.43 | $ | 6.95 | $ | 7.08 | $ | 7.29 | |||||||
KMP Status Quo Distribution Per Unit |
$ | 5.83 | $ | 6.18 | $ | 6.46 | $ | 6.96 | $ | 7.09 | $ | 7.30 | |||||||
EPB Status Quo Distributable Cash Flow Per Unit(4) |
$ | 2.63 | $ | 2.58 | $ | 2.78 | $ | 2.83 | $ | 2.92 | $ | 3.01 | |||||||
EPB Status Quo Distribution Per Unit |
$ | 2.60 | $ | 2.60 | $ | 2.73 | $ | 2.78 | $ | 2.87 | $ | 2.96 | |||||||
KMI Status Quo Dividend Per Share |
$ | 1.84 | $ | 2.00 | $ | 2.07 | $ | 2.22 | $ | 2.37 | $ | 2.53 | |||||||
KMI Pro Forma Dividend Per Share(5) |
$ | 2.00 | $ | 2.20 | $ | 2.42 | $ | 2.66 | $ | 2.93 | $ | 3.22 |
The above measures are not measures of financial performance under generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, and should not be considered as alternatives to net income (loss), operating income, or other performance measures derived in accordance with GAAP. KMI's computations of these measures may differ from similarly titled measures used by others.
58
The foregoing projected financial information is based on the following principal assumptions:
The foregoing projected financial information was not prepared with a view toward compliance with the published guidelines of the SEC, the guidelines established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for preparation and presentation of prospective financial information or generally accepted accounting principles. The projected financial information set forth above was prepared by, and is the responsibility of, KMI. Neither KMI's independent accountants, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, nor any other independent accountants, have compiled, examined or performed any procedures with respect to such projected financial information, nor have they expressed any opinion or any other form of assurance on such information or its achievability, and assume no responsibility for, and they disclaim any association with, such projected financial information. The PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP report incorporated by reference into this proxy statement relates to KMI's historical financial information. It does not extend to the projected financial information and should not be read to do so. The projected financial information is not included in this proxy statement to influence the decision of KMI stockholders on how to vote on any proposal and should not be relied upon for such purpose.
The projected financial information is based on numerous variables and assumptions that are inherently uncertain and may be beyond the control of KMI's management. Important factors that may affect actual results and cause the projected financial information not to be achieved include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties relating to KMI's, KMP's or EPB's businesses (including their ability to achieve strategic goals, objectives and targets over applicable periods), industry performance,
59
the regulatory environment, general business and economic conditions and other matters described under the sections entitled "Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements" and "Risk Factors." The projected financial information also reflects assumptions as to certain business decisions that are subject to change. As a result, actual results may differ materially from those contained in the projected financial information. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the forecasted results will be realized.
The inclusion of the projected financial information in this proxy statement should not be regarded as an indication that any of KMI or its officers, directors, partners, affiliates, advisors or other representatives considered the projected financial information to be necessarily predictive of actual future events, and the projected financial information should not be relied upon as such. None of KMI or any of its officers, directors, partners, affiliates, advisors or other representatives can give you any assurance that actual results will not differ from the projected results. KMI undertakes no obligation to update or otherwise revise or reconcile the projected financial information to reflect circumstances existing after the date the projected financial information was generated or to reflect the occurrence of future events in the event that any or all of the assumptions underlying the projections are shown to be in error or for any other reason. KMI does not intend to make publicly available any update or other revision to the projected financial information. KMI makes no representation to any stockholder or other person regarding KMI's, KMP's or EPB's ultimate performance compared to the information contained in the projected financial information or that projected results will be achieved. KMI has made no representation to KMP, KMR or EPB in the respective merger agreements or otherwise concerning the projected financial information.
Opinion of Barclays Capital Inc.
KMI engaged Barclays Capital to act as a financial advisor with respect to the Transactions, pursuant to an engagement letter dated August 8, 2014. KMI's board of directors received a written opinion, dated August 9, 2014, from Barclays Capital to the effect that, as of such date and based upon and subject to the qualifications, limitations and assumptions stated therein, the aggregate number of shares of KMI common stock, together with the aggregate amount of cash, contemplated by the merger agreements to be issued and paid as consideration in the mergers, referred to as the "Transactions Consideration" to be paid in the aggregate by KMI was fair, from a financial point of view, to KMI.
The full text of Barclays Capital's written opinion, dated as of August 9, 2014, is attached as Annex D to this proxy statement. Barclays Capital's written opinion sets forth, among other things, the assumptions made, procedures followed, factors considered and limitations on the review undertaken by Barclays Capital in rendering its opinion. You are encouraged to read the opinion of Barclays Capital carefully in its entirety. The following is a summary of Barclays Capital's opinion and the methodology that Barclays Capital used to render its opinion. This summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the opinion.
The terms of the Transactions were determined through arm's length negotiations between KMI, on the one hand, and the KMGP conflicts committee, the KMR special committee and the EPGP conflicts committee, as applicable, on the other hand, and were unanimously approved by KMI's board of directors. Barclays Capital did not recommend any specific form or amount of consideration to KMI or that any specific form or amount of consideration constituted the only appropriate consideration for the Transactions. Barclays Capital was not requested to address, and its opinion does not in any manner address, KMI's underlying business decision to proceed with or effect any or all of the Transactions or the likelihood of consummation of any or all of the Transactions or the relative merits of any or all of the Transactions as compared to any strategic alternatives that may be available to KMI (including pursuing any of the Transactions individually). In addition, Barclays Capital expressed no opinion on, and its opinion does not in any manner address, the fairness of the amount or the nature of any compensation to any officers, directors or employees of any parties to the Transactions, or any class of such persons, relative to the Transactions Consideration to be paid in the aggregate by KMI in
60
the Transactions or otherwise. No limitations were imposed by the KMI board upon Barclays Capital with respect to the investigations made or procedures followed by it in rendering its opinion.
In arriving at its opinion, Barclays Capital, among other things, reviewed and analyzed:
In arriving at its opinion, Barclays Capital assumed and relied upon the accuracy and completeness of the financial and other information used by Barclays Capital without any independent verification of such information (and Barclays Capital did not assume responsibility or liability for any independent verification of such information) and Barclays Capital further relied upon the assurances of the management of KMI that they were not aware of any facts or circumstances that would make such information inaccurate or misleading. With respect to the financial projections of KMI, upon the advice of KMI, Barclays Capital assumed that such projections were reasonably prepared on a basis reflecting the best currently available estimates and judgments of the management of KMI as to the future
61
financial performance of KMI and that KMI would perform substantially in accordance with such projections. With respect to the financial projections of KMP, KMR and EPB, upon the advice of KMI, Barclays Capital assumed that such projections were reasonably prepared on a basis reflecting the best currently available estimates and judgments of the management of KMI as to the future financial performance of KMP, KMR and EPB and Barclays Capital has relied on such projections in arriving at its opinion. Furthermore, upon the advice of KMI, Barclays Capital assumed that the amounts and timing of the Expected Synergies and the Expected Benefits are reasonable and that the Expected Synergies and the Expected Benefits would be realized in accordance with such estimates. Barclays Capital assumed no responsibility for, and Barclays Capital expressed no view as to any such projections or estimates or the assumptions on which they are based. In arriving at its opinion, Barclays Capital did not conduct a physical inspection of the properties and facilities of KMI, KMP, KMR or EPB, and has not made or obtained any evaluations or appraisals of the assets or liabilities of KMI, KMP, KMR or EPB. Barclays Capital's opinion necessarily was based upon market, economic and other conditions as they existed on, and could be evaluated as of, August 9, 2014. Barclays Capital assumed no responsibility for updating or revising its opinion based on events or circumstances that may occur after August 9, 2014. Barclays Capital expressed no opinion as to the prices at which shares of KMI common stock, or common units or shares, as applicable, of KMP, KMR and EPB or any other securities of KMI, KMP, KMR or EPB, would trade following the announcement of the Transactions or as to the prices at which shares of KMI common stock would trade following the consummation of the Transactions. Barclays Capital expressed no opinion as to the credit rating of KMI at any time following the announcement or consummation of the Transactions. Furthermore, Barclays Capital expressed no opinion as to any determination of dividend policy of KMI following the consummation of the Transactions.
Barclays Capital assumed that each of the executed merger agreements and the commitment letter would conform in all material respects to the last drafts thereof reviewed by Barclays Capital. Additionally, Barclays Capital assumed the accuracy of the representations and warranties contained in the merger agreements and all agreements related thereto. Barclays Capital also assumed, upon the advice of KMI, that all material governmental, regulatory and third party approvals, consents and releases for the Transactions would be obtained within the constraints contemplated by the merger agreements and that the Transactions would be consummated in accordance with the terms of the merger agreements without waiver, modification or amendment of any material term, condition or agreement thereof (including that all of the Transactions will be consummated substantially concurrently). Barclays Capital assumed that KMI will obtain financing on terms no less favorable to KMI than the terms contemplated by the commitment letter. Barclays Capital did not express any opinion as to any tax or other consequences that might result from the Transactions, nor did Barclays Capital's opinion address any legal, tax, regulatory or accounting matters, as to which Barclays Capital understood that KMI had obtained such advice as it deemed necessary from qualified professionals.
In connection with rendering its opinion, Barclays Capital performed certain financial, comparative and other analyses as summarized below. In arriving at its opinion, Barclays Capital did not ascribe a specific range of values to KMP's, KMR's and EPB's common units or shares, as applicable, but rather made its determination as to the fairness, from a financial point of view, to KMI of the Transactions Consideration to be paid in the aggregate by KMI in the Transactions on the basis of various financial and comparative analyses. The preparation of a fairness opinion is a complex process and involves various determinations as to the most appropriate and relevant methods of financial and comparative analyses and the application of those methods to the particular circumstances. Therefore, a fairness opinion is not readily susceptible to summary description.
In arriving at its opinion, Barclays Capital did not attribute any particular weight to any single analysis or factor considered by it but rather made qualitative judgments as to the significance and relevance of each analysis and factor relative to all other analyses and factors performed and considered by it and in the context of the circumstances of the particular transaction. Accordingly,
62
Barclays Capital believes that its analyses must be considered as a whole, as considering any portion of such analyses and factors, without considering all analyses and factors as a whole, could create a misleading or incomplete view of the process underlying its opinion.
The following is a summary of the material financial analyses used by Barclays Capital in preparing its opinion for KMI's board of directors. Certain financial, comparative and other analyses summarized below include information presented in tabular format. In order to fully understand the methodologies used by Barclays Capital and the results of its financial, comparative and other analyses, the tables must be read together with the text of each summary, as the tables alone do not constitute a complete description of the financial analyses. In performing its analyses, Barclays Capital made numerous assumptions with respect to industry performance, general business and economic conditions and other matters, many of which are beyond the control of KMI or any other parties to the Transactions. None of KMI, KMP, KMR, EPB, Barclays Capital or any other person assumes responsibility if future results are materially different from those discussed. Any estimates contained in these analyses are not necessarily indicative of actual values or predictive of future results or values, which may be significantly more or less favorable than as set forth below. In addition, analyses relating to the value of the businesses do not purport to be appraisals or reflect the prices at which the businesses may actually be sold.
Premiums Paid Analysis
Barclays Capital reviewed certain publicly available information related to selected precedent transactions to calculate the amount of the premiums paid by the acquirers to the acquired company's stockholders or unitholders, as applicable. Barclays Capital analyzed domestic master limited partnership, or "MLP", transactions announced for the period from August 9, 2004 to August 8, 2014 with total transaction values in excess of $1 billion, excluding acquisitions of general partners. The following table sets forth the transactions analyzed based on such characteristics (and the date that each such transaction was announced):
Announcement Date
|
Acquirer | Target | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
10/10/13 | Regency Energy Partners LP | PVR Partners, L.P. | ||
05/06/13 | Inergy Midstream, L.P. | Crestwood Midstream Partners LP | ||
01/30/13 | Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. | Copano Energy, L.L.C. | ||
04/29/11 | Enterprise Products Partners L.P. | Duncan Energy Partners L.P. | ||
06/29/09 | Enterprise Products Partners L.P. | TEPPCO Partners L.P. | ||
06/12/06 | Plains All-American Pipeline, L.P. | Pacific Energy Partners LP | ||
11/01/04 | Valero L.P. | Kaneb PipeLine Partners, L.P. |
For each of the precedent transactions analyzed, Barclays Capital calculated the premiums paid by the acquirer by comparing the per share or per unit purchase price in each transaction to the historical stock price of the acquired company as of 1 day, 30 days and 60 days prior to the announcement date of the applicable precedent transaction. Barclays Capital compared the premiums paid in the precedent transactions to the premiums in the Transactions based on the implied value, as of August 8, 2014, of the Transactions Consideration of (x) $89.98 per unit of KMP, (y) $89.75 per share of KMR and (z) $38.79 per unit of EPB. The table below sets forth the summary results of the analysis:
|
|
Merger Consideration |
|
Merger Consideration |
|
Merger Consideration |
Representative Transactions Statistics |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
As of 08/08/2014
|
KMP | $89.98 | KMR | $89.75 | EPB | $38.79 | Median | Mean | Low | High | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Implied Premium / (Discount) |
|
Implied Premium / (Discount) |
|
Implied Premium / (Discount) |
Implied Premium / (Discount) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Current |
$ | 80.34 | 12.0 | % | $ | 77.02 | 16.5 | % | $ | 33.60 | 15.4 | % | 21.2 | % | 20.2 | % | 9.3 | % | 36.1 | % | |||||||||||
30 Days Ago |
$ | 81.43 | 10.5 | % | $ | 78.15 | 14.8 | % | $ | 36.16 | 7.3 | % | 20.8 | % | 23.1 | % | 11.1 | % | 40.1 | % | |||||||||||
60 Days Ago |
$ | 74.99 | 20.0 | % | $ | 71.47 | 25.6 | % | $ | 33.08 | 17.3 | % | 26.3 | % | 22.4 | % | (0.7 | )% | 42.9 | % |
63
Pro Forma Accretion/Dilution Analysis
Using the Projections and estimates of the Expected Synergies and the Expected Benefits resulting from the Transactions provided by the management of KMI, Barclays Capital calculated the accretion/dilution of dividends per share (including warrants) of KMI common stock as a result of the Transactions. For calendar years 2015 through 2020, assuming an expected January 1, 2015 closing of the Transactions, Barclays Capital compared the dividends per share (including warrants) of KMI common stock after giving effect to the Transactions, which is referred to as the "KMI Pro Forma Scenario," to the dividends per share (including warrants) of KMI common stock without giving effect to the Transactions, which is referred to as the "KMI Status Quo Scenario." The analysis indicated that the KMI Pro Forma Scenario would be accretive to dividends per share of KMI common stock in each of calendar years 2015 through 2020. The following table summarizes the results of these calculations:
|
2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dividends per share (including warrants) for the KMI Status Quo Scenario |
$ | 1.84 | $ | 2.00 | $ | 2.07 | $ | 2.22 | $ | 2.37 | $ | 2.53 | |||||||
Dividends per share (including warrants) for the KMI Pro Forma Scenario |
$ | 2.00 | $ | 2.20 | $ | 2.42 | $ | 2.66 | $ | 2.93 | $ | 3.22 | |||||||
Accretion / (Dilution)$ |
$ | 0.16 | $ | 0.20 | $ | 0.35 | $ | 0.44 | $ | 0.56 | $ | 0.69 | |||||||
Accretion / (Dilution)% |
8.7 | % | 10.2 | % | 17.1 | % | 20.1 | % | 23.6 | % | 27.4 | % |
In performing this analysis, Barclays Capital made numerous assumptions with respect to industry performance, general business and economic conditions and other matters, many of which are beyond the control of KMI, KMP, KMR and EPB. Any estimates contained in Barclays Capital's analysis are not necessarily indicative of future results or actual values, which may be significantly more or less favorable than those suggested by the estimates. These analyses were prepared solely as part of the analysis of Barclays Capital of the fairness to KMI, from a financial point of view, of the Transactions Consideration to be paid in the aggregate by KMI and were conducted in connection with the delivery of Barclays Capital's opinion to KMI's board of directors.
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis
In order to estimate the present value of our common stock for the KMI Status Quo Scenario as compared to the present value of KMI common stock for the KMI Pro Forma Scenario, Barclays Capital performed a discounted cash flow analysis. A discounted cash flow analysis is a traditional valuation methodology used to derive the valuation of an asset by calculating the "present value" of estimated future cash flows of an asset. "Present value" refers to the current value of future cash flows or amounts and is obtained by discounting those future cash flows or amounts by a discount rate that takes into account macroeconomic assumptions and estimates of risk, the opportunity cost of capital, expected returns and other appropriate factors.
To calculate the estimated implied per share value of our common stock using the discounted cash flow method for each of the KMI Status Quo Scenario and the KMI Pro Forma Scenario, Barclays Capital added: (i) the forecasted dividends per share for calendar years 2015 through 2019, based on distributed cash flow projections of KMI furnished to Barclays Capital by KMI management to (ii) the "terminal value" of the forecasted dividend per share at the end of calendar year 2019, based on guidance from KMI management, and discounted the sum of such amounts to January 1, 2015 using a range of assumed yield and indicative growth rates (as further described below).
The terminal value for the KMI Status Quo Scenario was estimated by applying a range of assumed yields of 4.50% to 5.25% to KMI's forecasted calendar year 2020 dividend per share. These assumed yields were selected based on Barclays Capital's professional judgment and experience, taking into account historical trading levels of our common stock. The cash flows for the KMI Status Quo Scenario were then discounted to January 1, 2015 using assumed yield and indicative growth rates ranging from 11.50% to 14.50%, which were selected based on estimates of assumed dividend yields added to estimates of indicative growth rates (based on Barclays Capital's professional judgment and experience, taking into account projected compounded annual growth rates for dividends as estimated by equity research analysts who cover KMI and as estimated by KMI management). Based on these calculations, Barclays Capital determined an implied reference range of per share values of our common stock for the KMI Status Quo Scenario of $32.50 to $39.00.
64
Similarly, the terminal value for the KMI Pro Forma Scenario was estimated by applying a range of assumed yields of 3.75% to 4.50% to KMI's forecasted calendar year 2020 dividend per share. These assumed yields were selected based on Barclays Capital's professional judgment and experience, taking into account dividend yields and estimated dividend growth rates of comparable large-capitalization, dividend-paying companies and MLPs. The cash flows for the KMI Pro Forma Scenario were then discounted to January 1, 2015 using assumed yield and indicative growth rates ranging from 13.75% to 14.50%, which were selected based on estimates of assumed dividend yields added to estimates of indicative growth rates (based on Barclays Capital's professional judgment and experience, taking into account dividend yields and estimated dividend growth rates of comparable large-capitalization, dividend-paying companies and MLPs). Based on these calculations, Barclays Capital determined an implied reference range of per share values of KMI common stock for the KMI Pro Forma Scenario of $45.00 to $53.50.
Barclays Capital then compared the implied per share values for the KMI Status Quo Scenario with the implied per share values for the KMI Pro Forma Scenario. Barclays Capital noted that, on the basis of the discounted cash flow analysis and such comparison, the implied per share values for the KMI Pro Forma Scenario were above the implied per share values of KMI common stock for the KMI Status Quo Scenario.
Equity Research Price Targets Analysis
Barclays Capital evaluated the publicly available share price targets of KMI published by independent equity research analysts associated with various Wall Street firms. Barclays Capital used these share price targets, where applicable and available, as a reference point to provide background information and perspective. With respect to KMI, Barclays Capital noted that the range of low to high share price targets, where applicable and available, as of August 8, 2014 was $31.00 to $45.00 per share of KMI common stock.
Historical Share Price Analysis
To illustrate the trend in the historical trading prices of shares of KMI common stock, Barclays Capital considered historical data with regard to the trading share prices of KMI common stock for the 52-week period from August 8, 2013 through and including August 8, 2014. Barclays Capital noted that during such 52-week period, the price per share of KMI common stock ranged from $30.81 to $38.30.
Other Presentations by Barclays Capital
In addition to the presentation delivered to the KMI board on August 9, 2014, as described above, which is referred to as the "Barclays Capital Fairness Opinion Analysis Presentation," Barclays Capital also delivered materials and presentations to the KMI board and the independent members of the KMGP board, KMR board and EPGP board, respectively, as further described in the section titled "the TransactionsBackground of the Transactions." One such presentation, dated as of July 16, 2014, which is referred to as the "Barclays Capital July 16th Presentation," was delivered by Barclays to the KMI board on July 16, 2014. Furthermore, at the request of the management of KMI, Barclays Capital prepared certain materials, which are referred to as the "Barclays Capital Committee Materials," for, and presented the Barclays Capital Committee Materials to, the independent members of the KMGP board, KMR board and EPGP board, respectively, on July 17, 2014.
The financial and comparative analyses and other information in the Barclays Capital July 16th Presentation and the Barclays Capital Committee Materials were based on market, economic and other conditions as of their respective dates as well as other information that was available to Barclays at such times. Accordingly, the results of the financial analyses and other information differed from the Barclays Capital Fairness Opinion Presentation due to changes in those conditions. Barclays Capital
65
also continued to refine various aspects of its financial analyses with respect to KMI, KMP, KMR and EPB over time.
Copies of the Barclays Capital July 16th Presentation and the Barclays Capital Committee Materials have been filed as exhibits to the Schedule 13E-3 filed with the SEC in connection with the Transactions and will be made available for inspection and copying at the principal executive offices of KMI during its regular business hours by any interested stockholder of KMI. Copies may be obtained by requesting them in writing from KMI at the address provided in the section titled "The Parties to the TransactionsKMI." None of these presentations by Barclays Capital, alone or together, constitute, or form the basis of, an opinion of Barclays Capital with respect to the Transactions Consideration.
Barclays Capital July 16th Presentation
The Barclays Capital July 16th Presentation contained a preliminary overview of the Transactions and a preliminary version of certain financial, comparative and other analyses summarized above in this section. The Barclays Capital July 16th Presentation included a statement (qualified by a note that Barclays Capital does not render formal opinions or assurances regarding future trading values) that the pro forma combined company would trade at a 4.50% yield or below, based on Barclays Capital's professional judgement and experience, taking into account (i) market conditions as of the date thereof, (ii) pro forma metrics of the proposed combined company and (iii) dividend yields and estimated dividend growth rates of comparable large-capitalization, dividend-paying companies and MLPs. In addition, the Barclays Capital July 16th Presentation included an illustrative sensitivity to transaction premiums analysis, for which Barclays Capital calculated the cash coverage in the KMI Pro Forma Scenario as a function of the premiums paid to KMP's, KMR's and EPB's respective price per share or unit, as applicable, ranging from 10.0% to 15.0% (based on guidance from KMI management). The Barclays Capital July 16th Presentation also reviewed and analyzed (i) the trading history of KMI's common stock from February 11, 2011 through and including July 14, 2014 as compared with the trading histories of other companies that Barclays Capital deemed relevant and (ii) the yields and expected distribution growth rates of the KMI Pro Forma Scenario as compared with the yields and expected distribution growth rates of large- and mid-capitalization companies and MLPs that Barclays Capital deemed relevant.
Barclays Capital Committee Materials
At the request of the management of KMI, Barclays Capital prepared the Barclays Capital Committee Materials for, and presented the Barclays Capital Committee Materials to, independent members of the KMGP board, KMR board and EPGP board, respectively, on July 17, 2014. The Barclays Capital Committee Materials contained a preliminary overview of the Transactions and a preliminary version of certain financial, comparative and other analyses summarized above in this section. Additionally, the Barclays Capital Committee Materials included information regarding (i) a trading history of KMP and EPB common units from July 16, 2013 through and including July 16, 2014 as compared with the trading history of the Alerian MLP Index, (ii) the relative cost of equity of select MLPs as compared with KMP and EPB, respectively, (iii) the relative expected distribution growth rates of select MLPs as compared with KMP and EPB, respectively, (iv) the cash flow profile by business segment of KMP and EPB, respectively, as compared with the cash flow profile by business segment of the KMI Pro Forma Scenario, and (v) an overview of the Transactions as compared with other strategic alternatives available to KMI, KMP and EPB.
General
Barclays Capital is an internationally recognized investment banking firm and, as part of its investment banking activities, is regularly engaged in the valuation of businesses and their securities in connection with mergers and acquisitions, investments for passive and control purposes, negotiated
66
underwritings, competitive bids, secondary distributions of listed and unlisted securities, private placements and valuations for estate, corporate and other purposes. the KMI board selected Barclays Capital because of its familiarity with KMI and its qualifications, reputation and experience in the valuation of businesses and securities in connection with mergers and acquisitions generally, as well as substantial experience in transactions in the industries in which KMI, KMP, KMR and EPB operate.
Barclays Capital is acting as financial advisor to KMI in connection with the Transactions. As compensation for its services in connection with the Transactions, $1 million became payable by KMI to Barclays Capital upon the delivery of Barclays Capital's opinion, which is referred to as the "Opinion Fee." In addition, KMI will pay Barclays Capital a fee of $13 million, less any amount of the Opinion Fee previously paid, at the closing of the Transactions. In addition, KMI has agreed to reimburse certain of Barclays Capital's expenses in connection with the Transactions and indemnify Barclays Capital for certain liabilities that may arise out of Barclays Capital's engagement by KMI and the rendering of Barclays Capital's opinion. Barclays Capital has performed various investment banking and financial services for KMI, KMP, KMR and EPB in the past, and Barclays Capital expects to perform such services in the future, and has received, and expects to receive, customary fees for such services.
With respect to KMI, KMP, KMR and EPB, collectively, in the two years prior to rendering its fairness opinion, Barclays Capital performed the following investment banking and financial services: (i) (a) in August 2012, Barclays Capital rendered a fairness opinion to KMI in connection with KMI's sale of its 100% interest in Tennessee Gas Pipeline and 50% interest in El Paso Natural Gas to KMP; (b) in August 2012, Barclays Capital acted as joint bookrunner on KMI's secondary offering of 66,700,000 shares of KMI common stock by selling stockholders; (c) in October 2012, Barclays Capital acted as sole bookrunner on KMI's secondary offering of 69,296,921 shares of KMI common stock by selling stockholders; (d) in November 2012, Barclays Capital acted as administrative agent on KMI's amendment to its $1,750,000,000 revolving credit facility; and (e) in October 2013, Barclays Capital acted as joint bookrunner on KMI's $1,500,000,000 7.25-year and 10-year senior notes offering; (ii) in September 2012, Barclays Capital acted as joint bookrunner on EPB's follow-on offering of 8,165,000 EPB common units; and (iii)(a) in August 2012, Barclays Capital acted as financial advisor on KMP's sale of Rockies Express Pipeline; (b) in December 2012, Barclays Capital acted as sole bookrunner on KMP's follow-on offering of 4,485,000 KMP common units; (c) in May 2013, Barclays Capital acted as bookrunner on KMP's refinancing of its $2,700,000,000 credit facility; (d) in February 2014, Barclays Capital acted as joint bookrunner on KMP's $1,500,000,000 7-year and 30-year senior notes offering; (e) in February 2014, Barclays Capital acted as joint bookrunner on KMP's follow-on offering of 7,935,000 KMP common units; and (f) in August 2014, Barclays Capital acted as administrative agent, sole arranger and sole bookrunner on KMP's $1,000,000,000 credit facility. In connection with the foregoing services, Barclays Capital has received aggregate compensation equal to approximately $39,300,000.
Barclays Bank, an affiliate of Barclays Capital, is the administrative agent and a lender under the bridge facility that KMI has entered into in connection with the Transactions. See "Description of the Debt Financing for the Transactions."
Barclays Capital and its affiliates engage in a wide range of businesses from investment and commercial banking, lending, asset management and other financial and non-financial services. In the ordinary course of its business, Barclays Capital and its affiliates may actively trade and effect transactions in the equity, debt and/or other securities (and any derivatives thereof) and financial instruments (including loans and other obligations) of KMI, KMP, KMR and EPB and their respective affiliates for its own account and for the accounts of its customers and, accordingly, may at any time hold long or short positions and investments in such securities and financial instruments.
Barclays Capital's opinion, the issuance of which was approved by Barclays Capital's Fairness Opinion Committee, is addressed to KMI's board of directors, and addresses only the fairness, from a financial point of view, of the Transactions Consideration to be paid in the aggregate by KMI. Barclays
67
Capital's opinion is not intended to and does not constitute a recommendation to any stockholder of KMI as to how such stockholder should vote or act with respect to the Transactions or any other matter.
Financial Analyses of Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
KMI also has retained Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which is referred to as "Citi," as a financial advisor in connection with the proposed Transactions. In connection with this engagement, the KMI board of directors requested that Citi perform certain financial analyses of KMI both on a standalone basis and pro forma for the proposed Transactions, but primarily focused on KMI pro forma for the proposed Transactions. Citi's financial analyses were provided for the information of the KMI board of directors (in its capacity as such) in connection with its evaluation of the proposed Transactions from a financial point of view to KMI and did not address any other terms, aspects or implications of the proposed Transactions. Citi's financial analyses did not address the underlying business decision of KMI to effect the proposed Transactions, the relative merits of the proposed Transactions as compared to any alternative business strategies that might exist for KMI or the effect of any other transaction in which KMI might engage or consider. Citi's financial analyses are not intended to be and do not constitute a recommendation as to how any stockholder or unitholder should vote or act on any matters relating to the proposed Transactions or otherwise.
In preparing its financial analyses, Citi assumed and relied, without independent verification, upon the accuracy and completeness of all financial and other information and data publicly available or provided to or otherwise reviewed by or discussed with Citi and upon the assurances of KMI management that it was not aware of any relevant information that was omitted or that remained undisclosed to Citi. With respect to the financial projections and other information and data provided to or otherwise reviewed by or discussed with Citi relating to KMI, KMR, KMP and EPB, Citi was advised by KMI management, and assumed, with KMI's consent, that they were reasonably prepared on bases reflecting the best currently available estimates and judgments of KMI management as to the future financial performance of KMI, KMR, KMP and EPB, the potential strategic implications and financial and operational benefits (including the amount, timing and achievability thereof) anticipated by KMI management to result from, and other potential pro forma financial effects of, the proposed Transactions and the other matters covered thereby. Citi assumed, with KMI's consent, that the financial results, including with respect to the potential strategic implications and financial and operational benefits anticipated to result from the proposed Transactions, reflected in such financial projections and other information and data would be realized in the amounts and at the times projected. Citi relied upon the assessments of KMI management as to (i) existing and future relationships, agreements and arrangements with, and the ability of KMI pro forma for the Transactions to retain, key customers and related contracts of, or otherwise relating to, KMI, KMR, KMP and EPB, (ii) growth rate and other assumptions of KMI management with respect to KMI pro forma for the proposed Transactions and (iii) the potential impact on KMI, KMR, KMP and EPB of market trends and prospects relating to the natural gas and natural gas gathering, processing, transporting and fractionating industry, including assumptions of KMI management regarding future drilling and production, volume commitments, acreage dedication, and gathering and processing rates as reflected in the financial projections and other information and data utilized in Citi's analyses, which are subject to significant volatility and which, if different than as assumed, could have a material impact on Citi's analyses. Citi assumed, with KMI's consent, that there would be no developments with respect to any such matters that would have an adverse effect on KMI, KMR, KMP, EPB or the proposed Transactions (including the contemplated benefits thereof) or that would otherwise be meaningful in any respect to Citi's analyses.
Citi did not make and was not provided with an independent evaluation or appraisal of the assets or liabilities (contingent or otherwise) of KMI, KMR, KMP, EPB or any other entity and Citi did not make any physical inspection of the properties or assets of KMI, KMR, KMP, EPB or any other entity.
68
Citi did not express any view with respect to accounting, tax, regulatory, legal or similar matters and it relied, with KMI's consent, upon the assessments of representatives of KMI as to such matters. Citi's financial analyses were necessarily based upon information available, and financial, stock market and other conditions and circumstances existing and disclosed, to Citi as of the date on which such analyses were performed.
Citi was not requested to, and it did not, provide an opinion as to the fairness, from a financial point of view, of the consideration payable in the proposed Transactions or any other term or aspect of the proposed Transactions. The type and amount of consideration payable in the proposed Transactions were determined through negotiations among KMI, KMR, KMP and EPB, and the decision to enter into the merger agreements was solely that of the KMI board, the KMR board and KMR special committee, the KMGP board and KMGP conflicts committee, and the EPGP board and EPGP conflicts committee. Citi expressed no view or opinion as to, among other things, the form or structure of the proposed Transactions or any terms, aspects or implications of any agreement, arrangement or understanding to be entered into in connection with or contemplated by the proposed Transactions or otherwise. Citi did not express any view or opinion as to the actual value of KMI common stock when issued in the proposed Transactions or the prices at which KMI common stock, KMR shares, KMP common units or EPB common units would trade or otherwise be transferable at any time. Citi's financial analyses were only one of many factors considered by the KMI board of directors in its evaluation of the proposed Transactions and should not be viewed as determinative of the views of the KMI board of directors or KMI management with respect to the proposed Transactions or the consideration payable in the proposed Transactions.
In preparing its financial analyses, Citi performed a variety of financial and comparative analyses, including those described below. The summary of the analyses below is not a complete description of Citi's analyses. The preparation of financial analyses is a complex analytical process involving various determinations as to the most appropriate and relevant methods of financial analysis and the application of those methods to the particular circumstances and, therefore, financial analyses are not readily susceptible to summary description. Citi considered the results of all analyses undertaken by it and assessed as a whole, and it did not draw, in isolation, conclusions from or with regard to any one factor or method of analysis. Accordingly, Citi believes that the analyses must be considered as a whole and that selecting portions of its analyses and factors or focusing on information presented in tabular format, without considering all analyses and factors or the narrative description of the analyses, could create a misleading or incomplete view of the processes underlying such analyses.
In its analyses, Citi considered industry performance, general business, economic, market and financial conditions and other matters existing as of the date of its financial analyses, many of which are beyond the control of KMI. No company, business or transaction reviewed is identical or directly comparable to KMI, KMR, KMP, EPB or their respective businesses or the proposed Transactions and an evaluation of these analyses is not entirely mathematical; rather, the analyses involve complex considerations and judgments concerning financial and operating characteristics and other factors that could affect the public trading or other values of the companies or business segments reviewed.
The estimates contained in Citi's analyses and the valuation ranges resulting from any particular analysis are not necessarily indicative of actual values or predictive of future results or values, which may be significantly more or less favorable than those suggested by such analyses. In addition, analyses relating to the value of businesses or securities do not purport to be appraisals or to reflect the prices at which businesses or securities actually may be sold or acquired. Accordingly, the estimates used in, and the results derived from, Citi's analyses are inherently subject to substantial uncertainty and are not intended to be, and should not be construed in any respect as, an assurance or guaranty of value.
The following is a summary of the material financial analyses presented to the KMI board of directors. The financial analyses summarized below include information presented in tabular format. In order to fully understand Citi's financial analyses, the tables must be read together with the text of
69
each summary. The tables alone do not constitute a complete description of the financial analyses. Considering the data below without considering the full narrative description of the financial analyses, including the methodologies and assumptions underlying the analyses, could create a misleading or incomplete view of such analyses. For purposes of the financial analyses summarized below, the term "potential total investment returns" refers to the current yield of the applicable securities plus potential growth in distributions based on two-year compound annual growth rates of such distributions for calendar years 2015 through 2017.
July 16, 2014 Preliminary KMI Board Discussion Materials
Preliminary financial analyses and market perspectives provided by Citi to the KMI board of directors on July 16, 2014 included the following:
Current Performance of KMI on a Standalone Basis. In order to assist the KMI board in evaluating certain market perspectives on KMI, KMP and EPB on a standalone basis, Citi reviewed the following:
Trading Performance of KMI, KMP and EPB Relative to Selected Peers. In reviewing the stock or unit price performance of KMI, KMP and EPB, Citi compared the stock or unit price performance of KMI, KMP and EPB relative to their respective selected peer group indexes during the one-year and three-year periods ended July 14, 2014 in the case of KMI and during the one-year, three-year and five-year periods ended July 14, 2014 in the case of KMP and EPB. Financial data of the selected peer group indexes and KMI, KMP and EPB were based on publicly available information.
The selected peer group index for KMI consisted of the following six selected entities that are publicly traded general partners, which are referred to as "GPs," of publicly traded MLPs with midstream pipeline assets:
The selected peer group index for KMP consisted of the following seven selected entities that are publicly traded large diversified MLPs:
The selected peer group index for EPB consisted of the following six selected entities that are publicly traded natural gas pipeline-focused MLPs:
70
Citi observed that (i) shares of KMI common stock appreciated in value during such one-year and three-year periods by approximately 89.8% and 127.7% per share, respectively, relative to the appreciation in value of KMI's selected peer group index of approximately 155.9% and 198.9%, respectively, (ii) KMP common units appreciated in value during such one-year, three-year and five-year periods by approximately 92.4%, 110.5% and 156.8% per unit, respectively, relative to the appreciation in value of KMP's selected peer group index of approximately 113.1%, 148.8% and 233.1%, respectively, and (iii) EPB common units appreciated in value during such one-year, three-year and five-year periods by approximately 80.8%, 102.0% and 199.6% per unit, respectively, relative to the appreciation in value of EPB's selected peer group index of approximately 134.1%, 144.7% and 193.7%, respectively.
Financial Performance of KMI Relative to Selected Peers. In reviewing the financial performance of KMI on a standalone basis, Citi compared the GP distribution compound annual growth rates, expected potential total investment returns, GP firm values, debt ratios and current and calendar year 2015 estimated GP yields of KMI on a standalone basis and the following six selected partnerships that are GPs of publicly traded MLPs, which are referred to as the "selected public partnerships," and six selected companies that are GPs of publicly traded MLPs, which are referred to as the "selected public companies":
Financial data of the selected public partnerships and the selected public companies were based on publicly available research analysts' estimates, public filings and other publicly available information. Financial data of KMI was based on internal financial projections and other estimates of KMI management. The approximate overall low to high GP distribution compound annual growth rates, expected potential total investment returns, GP firm values, debt ratios and current and calendar year
71
2015 estimated GP yields as of July 14, 2014 for the six selected public partnerships and the six selected public companies were as follows:
Citi observed the following corresponding data for KMI as of July 14, 2014: (i) a GP distribution compound annual growth rate of approximately 5.8%; (ii) an expected potential total investment return of approximately 10.5%; (iii) a GP firm value of approximately $47.2 billion; (iv) a debt ratio of approximately 3.4x; and (v) a current and calendar year 2015 estimated GP dividend yield of approximately 4.7% and 5.1%.
Sum-of-the-Parts Analysis of KMI. Citi performed a sum-of-the-parts analysis of KMI on a standalone basis in order to observe the implied per share equity value reference range derived for KMI from such analysis relative to the closing stock price of KMI as of July 14, 2014. Financial data of KMI was based on internal financial projections and other estimates of KMI management. Citi calculated the implied total value of KMR shares, KMP common units and EPB common units held by KMI by multiplying selected publicly available research analysts' price target ranges for KMR shares, KMP common units and EPB common units of $66.00 to $92.00 per share, $70.00 to $93.00 per unit, and $32.00 to $36.00 per unit, respectively, by the total number of such shares or common units held by KMI. Citi then calculated the implied total value of the general partner interest and related incentive distribution rights of KMP and EPB held by KMI by multiplying calendar year 2014 estimated distributions in respect of such general partner interest and related incentive distribution rights by a selected indicative trading multiple range for such general partner interest and related incentive distribution rights of 17.0x to 23.0x. Citi calculated the implied total value of KMI's other assets by multiplying calendar year 2014 estimated earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, which is referred to as "EBITDA," by a selected indicative precedent transactions multiple range of 9.0x to 12.0x.
This analysis indicated the following approximate implied per share equity value reference range for KMI on a standalone basis, as compared to KMI's closing stock price on July 14, 2014:
|
Implied Per Share Equity Value Reference Range for KMI (Standalone) |
KMI Per Share Closing Stock Price (July 14, 2014) |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
$33.77 - $48.59 |
$35.97 |
72
Citi observed that the approximate implied per share equity value reference range for KMI on a standalone basis derived from this analysis represented a (discount)/premium to KMI's closing stock price on July 14, 2014 of approximately (6.1%) to 35.1%.
Potential Total Investment Returns Overview. In order to assist the KMI board of directors in evaluating the potential total investment returns for KMI that could be realized as a result of the proposed Transactions, Citi reviewed the potential total investment returns for selected publicly traded companies in comparison to those for KMI on a pro forma basis and performed a dividend discount analysis of KMI both on a standalone and pro forma basis, as more fully described below.
Selected Public Companies Potential Total Investment Returns. Citi reviewed certain financial information of KMI on a pro forma basis, certain financial and stock market information of KMI on a standalone basis and certain publicly available financial and stock market information of the following six selected companies that directly or through affiliates own midstream pipeline operations, which are collectively referred to as the "selected pipeline companies":
Citi also reviewed certain publicly available financial and stock market information of the following three selected companies that are dividend-paying utility companies, which are collectively referred to as the "selected utilities companies" and, together with the selected pipeline companies, as the "selected companies":
Citi reviewed, among other things, calendar year 2015 through calendar year 2017 estimated EBITDA, compound annual growth rates, calendar year 2015 through calendar year 2017 estimated dividend compound annual growth rates, and calendar year 2015 estimated dividend yields of the selected companies. Citi also reviewed estimated potential total investment returns for the selected companies. Financial data of the selected companies were based on publicly available research analysts' estimates, public filings and other publicly available information. Financial data of KMI was based on internal financial projections and other estimates of KMI management. The approximate overall low to high calendar year 2015 through calendar year 2017 estimated EBITDA compound annual growth rates, calendar year 2015 through calendar year 2017 estimated dividend compound annual growth rates, calendar year 2015 estimated dividend yields and estimated potential total investment returns observed for the selected pipeline companies and the selected utilities companies were as follows:
73
Citi observed that the calendar year 2015 through calendar year 2017 estimated EBITDA compound annual growth rate and estimated dividend compound annual growth rate for KMI on a pro forma basis were approximately 10.8% and 10.0%, respectively. Citi then selected a potential estimated calendar year 2015 dividend yield range for KMI on a pro forma basis of 4.75% to 4.50% which, after taking into account the estimated present value of a potential step-up in tax basis per share of KMI common stock, which is referred to as the "potential tax basis step-up per share," that KMI management projected could result from the proposed Transactions, indicated an approximate implied per share equity value range for KMI of $42.11 to $44.44, respectively, and a potential total investment return range of approximately 14.8% to 14.5%, respectively.
Dividend Discount Analyses. Citi performed dividend discount analyses of KMI in order to observe the implied per share equity value reference ranges derived from such analyses for KMI both on a standalone and pro forma basis. Financial data of KMI was based on internal financial projections and other estimates of KMI management.
Citi performed a standalone dividend discount analysis of KMI by calculating the estimated present value of the dividends per share that KMI on a standalone basis was projected to generate during calendar years ending December 31, 2015 through December 31, 2023. Citi calculated terminal values for KMI on a standalone basis by applying to its calendar year 2023 estimated dividends per share a range of terminal dividend yields of 5.5% to 4.5%. The present values (as of January 1, 2015) of the dividends per share and terminal values were then calculated using discount rates ranging from 7.5% to 9.5%.
Citi also performed a pro forma dividend discount analysis of KMI after giving effect to the proposed Transactions by calculating the estimated present value of the dividends per share that KMI on a pro forma basis was projected to generate during calendar years ending December 31, 2015 through December 31, 2023, excluding the effects of the potential tax basis step-up per share that KMI management projected could result from the proposed Transactions. Citi calculated terminal values for KMI on a pro forma basis by applying to its calendar year 2023 estimated dividends per share a range of terminal dividend yields of 5.5% to 4.5%. The present values (as of January 1, 2015) of the dividends per share and terminal values were then calculated using discount rates ranging from 7.5% to 9.5%. Citi additionally calculated the estimated present value (as of January 1, 2015) of the potential tax basis step-up per share that KMI management projected could result from the proposed Transactions during calendar years ending December 31, 2015 through December 31, 2028 using discount rates ranging from 7.5% to 9.5%.
These analyses indicated the following approximate implied per share equity value reference ranges for KMI on a standalone basis, as compared to the approximate implied per share equity value reference ranges for KMI on a pro forma basis, both excluding and including the estimated present
74
value of the potential tax basis step-up per share that KMI management projected could result from the proposed Transactions:
Implied Per Share Equity Value Reference Ranges for KMI | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standalone Basis
|
Pro Forma Basis (Excluding Potential Tax Basis Step-Up Per Share) |
Potential Tax Basis Step-Up Per Share |
Pro Forma Basis (Including Potential Tax Basis Step-Up Per Share) |
|||
$39.11 - $51.31 |
$38.92 - $51.03 | $4.98 - $5.52 | $43.90 - $56.55 |
Citi observed that these dividend discount analyses indicated approximate implied per share calendar year 2015 estimated dividend yields for KMI, both excluding and including the estimated present value of the potential tax basis step-up per share that KMI management projected could result from the proposed Transactions, ranging from 3.4% to 4.4% and 3.5% to 4.6%, respectively.
Pro Forma Accretion/Dilution. Citi reviewed the potential pro forma financial effects of the proposed Transactions on KMI's estimated cash available for dividends and dividends per share of KMI common stock during calendar years 2015 through 2023 assuming, for illustrative purposes, a 10% premium and a 15% premium to KMP, KMR and EPB closing share or unit prices on July 14, 2014 relative to KMI's cash available for dividends and dividends per share of KMI common stock on a standalone basis during such calendar years. Financial data of KMI was based on internal financial projections and other estimates of KMI management. Citi observed that the proposed Transactions could be accretive (dilutive) to KMI's cash available for dividends and dividends per share of KMI common stock on a standalone basis by the following approximate percentages:
|
2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
At 10% Premium: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash Available for Dividends |
21.6 | % | 24.6 | % | 29.1 | % | 35.8 | % | 28.6 | % | 28.5 | % | 24.5 | % | 20.8 | % | 17.5 | % | ||||||||||
Dividends per Share |
8.7 | % | 10.6 | % | 17.5 | % | 20.5 | % | 21.0 | % | 22.5 | % | 19.9 | % | 17.4 | % | 15.1 | % | ||||||||||
At 15% Premium: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash Available for Dividends |
19.6 | % | 22.4 | % | 26.9 | % | 33.4 | % | 26.2 | % | 26.0 | % | 21.9 | % | 18.2 | % | 14.9 | % | ||||||||||
Dividends per Share |
8.7 | % | 10.6 | % | 17.5 | % | 20.5 | % | 21.0 | % | 22.5 | % | 19.9 | % | 17.4 | % | 15.1 | % |
Citi also reviewed the potential pro forma financial effects of the proposed Transactions on distributions per KMP common unit, distributions per KMR share and distributions per EPB common unit for calendar years 2015 through 2023 assuming, for illustrative purposes, a 10% premium and a 15% premium to KMP's, KMR's and EPB's closing share or unit prices on July 14, 2014 relative to distributions per KMP common unit, distributions per KMR share and distributions per EPB common unit on a standalone basis during such calendar years. Financial data of KMP, KMR and EPB were based on internal financial projections and other estimates of KMI management. Citi observed that the proposed Transactions could be accretive (dilutive) to distributions per KMP common unit, distributions per KMR share and distributions per EPB common unit on a standalone basis by the following percentages:
|
2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
At 10% Premium: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KMP |
(15.2 | )% | (12.0 | )% | (7.4 | )% | (5.5 | )% | 2.1 | % | 4.0 | % | 6.0 | % | 8.2 | % | 10.5 | % | ||||||||||
KMR |
(15.2 | )% | (12.0 | )% | (7.4 | )% | (5.5 | )% | 2.1 | % | 4.0 | % | 6.0 | % | 8.2 | % | 10.5 | % | ||||||||||
EPB |
(15.9 | )% | (7.5 | )% | (3.1 | )% | 4.6 | % | 10.6 | % | 12.3 | % | 14.1 | % | 15.9 | % | 17.7 | % | ||||||||||
At 15% Premium: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KMP |
(11.4 | )% | (8.1 | )% | (3.2 | )% | (1.2 | )% | 6.7 | % | 8.7 | % | 10.8 | % | 13.1 | % | 15.5 | % | ||||||||||
KMR |
(11.4 | )% | (8.1 | )% | (3.2 | )% | (1.2 | )% | 6.7 | % | 8.7 | % | 10.8 | % | 13.1 | % | 15.5 | % | ||||||||||
EPB |
(12.1 | )% | (3.3 | )% | 1.3 | % | 9.4 | % | 15.7 | % | 17.4 | % | 19.3 | % | 21.1 | % | 23.0 | % |
The actual results achieved by KMI, KMP, KMR and EPB may vary from projected results and the variations may be material.
75
Other Information. Citi also noted certain additional information, including, among other things, the following:
76
of current distributions to the general partner, forward distributions to the general partner and forward distributable cash flow to the general partner of 6.5x to 115.6x (with a mean of 31.5x and a median of 21.6x), 8.5x to 45.4x (with a mean of 24.5x and a median of 22.4x) and 3.8x to 37.5x (with a mean of 14.5x and a median of 12.7x), respectively, and (iii) 16 selected transactions in which GP incentive distribution rights ranged from 45% to 50% announced from July 1999 through May 2013 with transaction values ranging from approximately $88 million to $2 billion, which transactions reflected overall low to high multiples of current distributions to the general partner, forward distributions to the general partner and forward distributable cash flow to the general partner of 10.1x to 42.6x (with a mean of 18.8x and a median of 16.3x), 8.1x to 27.2x (with a mean of 15.8x and a median of 15.4x) and 7.0x to 22.2x (with a mean of 13.5x and a median of 14.1x), respectively.
August 9, 2014 KMI Board Discussion Materials
Financial analyses and market perspectives provided by Citi to the KMI board of directors on August 9, 2014 included the following:
Current Performance of KMI on a Standalone Basis. In order to further assist the KMI board of directors in evaluating certain market perspectives on KMI, KMP and EPB on a standalone basis, Citi reviewed the following:
Trading Performance of KMI, KMP and EPB Relative to Selected Peers. In reviewing the stock or unit price performance of KMI, KMP and EPB, Citi compared the stock or unit price performance of KMI, KMP and EPB relative to their respective selected peer group indexes during the one-year and three-year periods ended August 8, 2014 in the case of KMI and during the one-year, three-year and five-year periods ended August 8, 2014 in the case of KMP and EPB. Financial data of the selected peer group indexes and KMI, KMP and EPB were based on publicly available information.
The selected peer group index for KMI consisted of the following six selected entities that are publicly traded general partners, which are referred to as "GPs," of publicly traded MLPs with midstream pipeline assets:
The selected peer group index for KMP consisted of the following seven selected entities that are publicly traded large diversified MLPs:
77
The selected peer group index for EPB consisted of the following six selected entities that are publicly traded natural gas pipeline-focused MLPs:
Citi observed that (i) shares of KMI common stock appreciated in value during such one-year and three-year periods by approximately 95.7% and 152.7% per share, respectively, relative to the appreciation in value of KMI's selected peer group index of approximately 140.4% and 226.5%, respectively, (ii) KMP common units appreciated in value during such one-year, three-year and five-year periods by approximately 98.0%, 124.4% and 152.2% per unit, respectively, relative to the appreciation in value of KMP's selected peer group index of approximately 114.5%, 164.2% and 212.0%, respectively, and (iii) EPB common units appreciated in value during such one-year, three-year and five-year periods by approximately 80.8%, 104.7% and 174.1% per unit, respectively, relative to the appreciation in value of EPB's selected peer group index of approximately 125.0%, 155.3% and 168.5%, respectively.
Financial Performance of KMI Relative to Selected Peers. In reviewing the financial performance of KMI on a standalone basis, Citi compared of the GP distribution compound annual growth rates, expected potential total investment returns, GP firm values, debt ratios and current and calendar year 2015 estimated GP yields of KMI on a standalone basis and the following six selected partnerships that are GPs of publicly traded MLPs, which are referred to as the "selected public partnerships," and six selected companies that are GPs of publicly traded MLPs, which are referred to as the "selected public companies":
Financial data of the selected public partnerships and the selected public companies were based on publicly available research analysts' estimates, public filings and other publicly available information. Financial data of KMI was based on internal financial projections and other estimates of KMI
78
management. The approximate overall low to high GP distribution compound annual growth rates, expected potential total investment returns, GP firm values, debt ratios and current and calendar year 2015 estimated GP yields as of August 8, 2014 for the six selected public partnerships and the six selected public companies were as follows:
Citi observed the following corresponding data for KMI as of August 8, 2014: (i) a GP distribution compound annual growth rate of approximately 5.8%; (ii) an expected potential total investment return of approximately 10.6%; (iii) a GP firm value of approximately $47.4 billion; (iv) a debt ratio of approximately 3.4x; and (v) a current and calendar year 2015 estimated GP dividend yield of approximately 4.8% and 5.1%.
Sum-of-the-Parts Analysis of KMI. Citi performed a sum-of-the-parts analysis of KMI on a standalone basis in order to observe the implied per share equity value reference range derived for KMI from such analysis relative to the closing stock price of KMI as of August 8, 2014. Financial data of KMI was based on internal financial projections and other estimates of KMI management. Citi calculated the implied total value of KMR shares, KMP common units and EPB common units held by KMI by multiplying selected publicly available research analysts' price target ranges for KMR shares, KMP common units and EPB common units of $68.00 to $92.00 per share, $75.00 to $93.00 per unit and $32.00 to $40.00 per unit, respectively, by the total number of such shares or common units held by KMI. Citi then calculated the implied total value of the general partner interest and related incentive distribution rights of KMP and EPB held by KMI by multiplying calendar year 2014 estimated distributions in respect of such general partner interest and related incentive distribution rights by a selected indicative trading multiple range for such general partner interest and related incentive distribution rights of 17.0x to 23.0x. Citi calculated the implied total value of KMI's other assets by multiplying calendar year 2014 estimated EBITDA by a selected indicative precedent transactions multiple range of 9.0x to 12.0x.
This analysis indicated the following approximate implied per share equity value reference range for KMI on a standalone basis, as compared to KMI's closing stock price on August 8, 2014:
|
Implied Per Share Equity Value Reference Range for KMI (Standalone) |
KMI Per Share Closing Stock Price (August 8, 2014) |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
$33.91 - $48.93 | $36.12 |
79
Citi observed that the approximate implied per share equity value reference range for KMI on a standalone basis derived from this analysis represented a (discount)/premium to KMI's closing stock price on August 8, 2014 of approximately (6.1%) to 35.5%.
Potential Total Investment Returns Overview. In order to further assist the KMI board of directors in evaluating the potential total investment returns for KMI that could be realized as a result of the proposed Transactions, Citi reviewed the potential total investment returns for selected publicly traded companies in comparison to those for KMI on a pro forma basis and performed a dividend discount analysis of KMI both on a standalone and pro forma basis, as more fully described below.
Selected Public Companies Potential Total Investment Returns. Citi reviewed certain financial information of KMI on a pro forma basis, certain financial and stock market information of KMI on a standalone basis and certain publicly available financial and stock market information of the following six selected companies that directly or through affiliates own midstream pipeline operations, which are collectively referred to as the "selected pipeline companies":
Citi also reviewed certain publicly available financial and stock market information of the following three selected companies that are dividend-paying utility companies, which are collectively referred to as the "selected utilities companies" and, together with the selected pipeline companies, as the "selected companies":
Citi reviewed, among other things, calendar year 2015 through calendar year 2017 estimated EBITDA compound annual growth rates, calendar year 2015 through calendar year 2017 estimated dividend compound annual growth rates, and calendar year 2015 estimated dividend yields of the selected companies. Citi also reviewed estimated potential total investment returns for the selected companies. Financial data of the selected companies were based on publicly available research analysts' estimates, public filings and other publicly available information. Financial data of KMI was based on internal financial projections and other estimates of KMI management. The approximate overall low to high calendar year 2015 through calendar year 2017 estimated EBITDA compound annual growth rates, calendar year 2015 through calendar year 2017 estimated dividend compound annual growth rates, calendar year 2015 estimated dividend yields and estimated potential total investment returns observed for the selected pipeline companies and the selected utilities companies were as follows:
80
Citi observed that the calendar year 2015 through calendar year 2017 estimated EBITDA compound annual growth rate and estimated dividend compound annual growth rate for KMI on a pro forma basis were approximately 10.8% and 10.0%, respectively. Citi then selected a potential estimated calendar year 2015 dividend yield range for KMI on a pro forma basis of 4.75% to 4.50% which, after taking into account the estimated present value of the potential tax basis step-up per share that KMI management projected could result from the proposed Transactions, indicated an approximate implied per share equity value range for KMI of $42.11 to $44.44, respectively, and a potential total investment return range of approximately 14.8% to 14.5%, respectively.
Dividend Discount Analyses. Citi performed dividend discount analyses of KMI in order to observe the implied per share equity value reference ranges derived from such analyses for KMI both on a standalone and pro forma basis. Financial data of KMI was based on internal financial projections and other estimates of KMI management. Citi performed a standalone dividend discount analysis of KMI by calculating the estimated present value of the dividends per share that KMI on a standalone basis was projected to generate during calendar years ending December 31, 2015 through December 31, 2023. Citi calculated terminal values for KMI on a standalone basis by applying to its calendar year 2023 estimated dividends per share a range of terminal dividend yields of 5.5% to 4.5%. The present values (as of January 1, 2015) of the dividends per share and terminal values were then calculated using discount rates ranging from 7.5% to 9.0%.
Citi also performed a pro forma dividend discount analysis of KMI after giving effect to the proposed Transactions by calculating the estimated present value of the dividends per share that KMI on a pro forma basis was projected to generate during calendar years ending December 31, 2015 through December 31, 2023, excluding the effects of the potential tax basis step-up per share that KMI management projected could result from the proposed Transactions. Citi calculated terminal values for KMI on a pro forma basis by applying to its calendar year 2023 estimated dividends per share a range of terminal dividend yields of 5.5% to 4.5%. The present values (as of January 1, 2015) of the dividends per share and terminal values were then calculated using discount rates ranging from 7.5% to 9.0%. Citi additionally calculated the estimated present value (as of January 1, 2015) of the potential tax basis step-up per share that KMI management projected could result from the proposed Transactions during calendar years ending December 31, 2015 through December 31, 2029 using discount rates ranging from 7.5% to 9.0%.
These analyses indicated the following approximate implied per share equity value reference ranges for KMI on a standalone basis, as compared to the approximate implied per share equity value reference ranges for KMI on a pro forma basis, both excluding and including the estimated present value of the potential tax basis step-up per share that KMI management projected could result from the proposed Transactions:
Implied Per Share Equity Value Reference Ranges for KMI | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standalone Basis | Pro Forma Basis (Excluding Potential Tax Basis Step-Up Per Share) |
Potential Tax Basis Step-Up Per Share |
Pro Forma Basis (Including Potential Tax Basis Step-Up Per Share) |
|||
$40.43 - $51.29 | $41.83 - $52.86 | $3.27 - $3.57 | $45.10 - $56.43 |
81
Citi observed that these dividend discount analyses indicated approximate implied per share calendar year 2015 estimated dividend yields for KMI, both excluding and including the estimated present value of the potential tax basis step-up per share that KMI management projected could result from the proposed Transactions, ranging from 3.3% to 4.1% and 3.5% to 4.4%, respectively.
Pro Forma Accretion/Dilution. Citi reviewed the potential pro forma financial effects of the proposed Transactions on KMI's estimated cash available for dividends and dividends per share of KMI common stock during calendar years 2015 through 2023 assuming a 12.0% premium to KMP's closing unit price on August 8, 2014, a 16.5% premium to KMR's closing share price on August 8, 2014 and a 15.4% premium to EPB's closing unit price on August 8, 2014 relative to KMI's cash available for dividends and dividends per share of KMI common stock on a standalone basis during such calendar years. Financial data of KMI was based on internal financial projections and other estimates of KMI management. Citi observed that the proposed Transactions could be accretive (dilutive) to KMI's cash available for dividends and dividends per share of KMI common stock on a standalone basis by the following approximate percentages:
|
2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cash Available for Dividends |
21.9 | % | 23.7 | % | 28.8 | % | 36.2 | % | 29.0 | % | 29.3 | % | 25.3 | % | 21.2 | % | 17.1 | % | ||||||||||
Dividends per Share |
8.7 | % | 10.6 | % | 17.5 | % | 20.5 | % | 21.1 | % | 28.3 | % | 25.3 | % | 21.2 | % | 17.1 | % |
Citi also reviewed the potential pro forma financial effects of the proposed Transactions on distributions per KMP common unit, distributions per KMR share and distributions EPB common unit for calendar years 2015 through 2023 assuming a 12.0% premium to KMP's closing unit price on August 8, 2014, a 16.5% premium to KMR's closing share price on August 8, 2014 and a 15.4% premium to EPB's closing unit price on August 8, 2014 relative to distributions per KMP common unit, distributions per KMR share and distributions per EPB common unit on a standalone basis during such calendar years. Financial data of KMP, KMR and EPB were based on internal financial projections and other estimates of KMI management. Citi observed that the proposed Transactions could be accretive (dilutive) to distributions per KMP common unit, distributions per KMR share and distributions per EPB common unit on a standalone basis by the following percentages:
|
2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
KMP |
(14.5 | )% | (11.3 | )% | (6.7 | )% | (4.7 | )% | 2.9 | % | 9.9 | % | 11.8 | % | 12.6 | % | 13.4 | % | ||||||||||
KMR |
(14.8 | )% | (11.5 | )% | (6.9 | )% | (5.0 | )% | 2.7 | % | 9.6 | % | 11.5 | % | 12.4 | % | 13.2 | % | ||||||||||
EPB |
(17.4 | )% | (9.1 | )% | (4.8 | )% | 2.8 | % | 8.7 | % | 15.7 | % | 17.3 | % | 17.7 | % | 18.0 | % |
The actual results achieved by KMI, KMP, KMR and EPB may vary from projected results and the variations may be material.
Other Information. Citi also noted certain additional information, including, among other things, implied enterprise values (calculated as equity values based on closing stock or unit prices on August 8, 2014 plus implied market values of KMGP and EPGP (calculated as firm value of the publicly traded general partner less the value of common units held by such general partner and the value of other operations allocated proportionally by contribution of general partner interest and related incentive distributions), total debt and minority interest and less cash and cash equivalents) as a multiple of calendar year 2015 estimated EBITDA and stock or unit prices as a multiple of calendar year 2015 estimated distributable cash flow, among other performance data, for KMI, KMP and EPB assuming a 12.0% and 15.4% premium to KMP's and EPB's closing unit prices on August 8, 2014, respectively, which indicated calendar year 2015 estimated EBITDA multiples for KMI, KMP and EPB of 15.6x, 15.0x and 13.8x, respectively, and calendar year 2015 estimated distributable cash flow multiples for KMI, KMP and EPB of 19.6x, 15.7x and 14.7x, respectively.
82
Miscellaneous
KMI has agreed to pay Citi for its services as a financial advisor to KMI in connection with the proposed Transactions an aggregate fee of $5 million, payable contingent upon consummation of the Transactions. In addition, KMI has agreed to reimburse Citi for certain expenses, including reasonable fees and expenses of counsel, and to indemnify Citi and certain related parties against liabilities, including liabilities under federal securities laws, arising from Citi's engagement. Citi and its affiliates also are participating in the bridge facility as a syndication agent, documentation agent and lender and in the replacement revolving credit facility as syndication agent and as a joint lead arranger, joint bookrunner, and lender for which services Citi and its affiliates have received or will receive compensation.
Citi and its affiliates in the past have provided, currently are providing and/or in the future may provide services to KMI, KMP, KMR, EPB and their respective affiliates unrelated to the proposed Transactions for which services Citi and its affiliates have received and may receive compensation including, during the two-year period prior to the KMI board meeting on August 9, 2014 at which the proposed Transactions were approved, having acted or acting (i) as financial advisor in connection with certain merger and acquisition transactions, (ii) as a syndication agent, lead arranger, book-running manager and collateral agent for, and as a lender under, certain credit facilities of KMI, KMP and certain affiliates of EPB and (iii) as a sales agent, underwriter, co-manager and book-running manager for certain securities offerings of KMI, KMP and EPB, for which services Citi and its affiliates received aggregate fees totaling approximately $12.8 million. In the ordinary course of business, Citi and its affiliates may actively trade or hold the securities of KMI, KMP, KMR, EPB and their respective affiliates for its own account or for the account of its customers and, accordingly, may at any time hold a long or short position in such securities. In addition, Citi and its affiliates (including Citigroup Inc. and its affiliates) may maintain relationships with KMI, KMP, KMR, EPB and their respective affiliates.
KMI selected Citi to act as a financial advisor to KMI in connection with the proposed Transactions based on Citi's reputation, experience and familiarity with KMI and its business. Citi is an internationally recognized investment banking firm that regularly engages in the valuation of businesses and their securities in connection with mergers and acquisitions, negotiated underwritings, competitive bids, secondary distributions of listed and unlisted securities, private placements and valuations for estate, corporate and other purposes.
Interests of Certain Persons in the Transactions
In considering the recommendations of our board with respect to the proposals to be voted on at the special meeting, stockholders should be aware that some of our executive officers and directors have interests in the Transactions that may differ from, or may be in addition to, the interests of stockholders generally. These interests may present such directors and executive officers with actual or potential conflicts of interests, and these interests, to the extent material, are described below. Our board of directors was aware of these interests and considered them, among other matters, prior to providing its recommendations with respect to the proposals.
Common Directors and Executive Officers
The following KMI directors and executive officers are directors and executive officers of KMGP, KMR and EPGP:
83
Each of these individuals will retain his or her positions with KMI following the Transactions.
Unit and Share Ownership of Directors and Executive Officers
Certain of our directors and executive officers beneficially own equity securities of one or more of the parties to the Transactions, and these directors and executive officers will receive the applicable merger consideration upon completion of the Transactions. Please see "Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management of KMI" for further detail.
No Severance or Similar Payments
No executive officer of KMI, KMGP, KMR or EPB is entitled to or will receive any severance payments or "golden parachute compensation" in connection with the Transactions.
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management of KMI
The following table sets forth information as of October 20, 2014, regarding the beneficial ownership of our common stock (i) by each of our directors, by our principal executive officer, principal financial officer and three other most highly compensated executive officers (referred to as the named executive officers) and by all directors and executive officers as a group; and (ii) by each person known by us to own beneficially at least 5% of such shares. Except as noted otherwise, each beneficial owner has sole voting power and sole investment power over the shares listed. Unless noted otherwise, the address of each person below is c/o Kinder Morgan, Inc., 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002.
|
Common Stock | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Name of Beneficial Owner
|
Number of Shares |
Percent of Class(a) |
|||||
Richard D. Kinder(b) |
243,100,000 | 23.6 | % | ||||
Steven J. Kean(c) |
7,119,843 | * | |||||
Anthony W. Hall, Jr.(d) |
119,499 | * | |||||
Deborah A. Macdonald |
10,000 | * | |||||
Michael J. Miller(e) |
68,886,536 | 6.7 | % | ||||
Michael C. Morgan(f) |
4,272,622 | * | |||||
Fayez Sarofim(g) |
31,483,438 | 3.1 | % | ||||
C. Park Shaper(h) |
10,643,504 | 1.0 | % | ||||
Joel V. Staff(i) |
26,806 | * | |||||
John M. Stokes(e) |
68,886,536 | 6.7 | % | ||||
Robert F. Vagt(j) |
71,076 | * | |||||
Kimberly A. Dang(k) |
2,110,690 | * | |||||
David R. DeVeau(l) |
213,772 | * | |||||
Thomas A. Martin(m) |
883,824 | * | |||||
Directors and executive officers as a group (16 persons)(n) |
369,340,834 | 35.9 | % | ||||
Capital World Investors(o) |
76,109,545 | 7.4 | % | ||||
Highstar Capital LP(e) |
68,866,536 | 6.7 | % | ||||
Lone Pine Capital LLC and Stephen F. Mandel, Jr.(p) |
69,913,434 | 6.4 | % |
84
85
The following table sets forth information as of October 20, 2014, regarding the beneficial ownership of KMP common units, KMR shares and EPB common units by each of our directors, each of the named executive officers and all of our directors and executive officers as a group.
|
KMP Common Units | KMR Shares | EPB Common Units | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Name of Beneficial Owner
|
Number of Units |
Percent of Class(a) |
Number of Shares |
Percent of Class(a) |
Number of Units |
Percent of Class(a) |
||||||||||
Richard D. Kinder(b) |
333,774 | * | 344,181 | * | 128,000 | * | ||||||||||
Steven J. Kean |
10,830 | * | 5,752 | * | 18,000 | * | ||||||||||
Anthony W. Hall, Jr. |
| | | | | | ||||||||||
Deborah A. Macdonald |