Cytec shareholders approve merger with Solvay

Cytec Industries Inc has announced the voting results for its special meeting of common stockholders on its proposed merger with Solvay. The proposal to approve the merger received support from 99.3% of the votes cast, with a total of 84.1% of outstanding shares voted.

Cytec reports that as previously disclosed the closing of the merger is subject to satisfaction or waiver of certain closing conditions, including receipt of approvals (or expiration of applicable waiting periods) under the HSR Act as well as foreign antitrust or competition laws in Brazil, the European Union, Israel, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey and Ukraine, the conclusion of the review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), receipt of written acceptance from the Department of Defense Security Service (DSS) of the parties' commitment to enter into an arrangement to mitigate foreign ownership, control or influence (FOCI) and the requirement that the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls not have sent written notice objecting to the merger pursuant to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), among others. 

The companies also note that as previously disclosed, the waiting period under the HSR Act expired on 24 September 2015, and as of the date of this release, all applicable filings with respect to foreign antitrust or competition laws have been completed by Cytec and Solvay and the related  conditions to closing in Israel, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey and Ukraine have been satisfied.  In addition, the Company and Solvay are working with DSS on a detailed FOCI mitigation arrangement and the notice period applicable to the merger pursuant to ITAR expired on November 23, 2015.

Assuming timely satisfaction or waiver of the remaining closing conditions, the companies expect the closing of the merger to occur in December 2015. 

This story is reprinted from material from Cytec, with editorial changes made by Materials Today. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of Elsevier.