scholarly journals The UK Non-Frustration Rule: Should it be Replaced with a US-inspired Approach?

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 96
Author(s):  
Huanyang Ma

Recently, Arm Holdings, the most successful semiconductor and software design company in the UK, has agreed to be sold to SoftBank, a Japanese company. This takeover case, along with the case that Cadbury was acquired by Kraft in 2010, has led to questions about the openness to foreign mergers and acquisitions.[1] The non-frustration rule plays an important role in the openness of the UK’s market for corporate control.[2] Therefore, it is time to rethink about the non-frustration rule. One of the most heated questions is whether the rule should be replaced with the US-inspired approach. This article argues that the US-inspired approach will not function as well in the UK as it does in the US. After all, the UK and the US differ a lot in corporate structures and company regulations which make the background of the non-frustration rule different in two countries. 

Author(s):  
Anup Agrawal ◽  
Charles R. Knoeber

This paper reviews the literature on corporate governance and firm performance in economies with relatively dispersed stock ownership and an active market for corporate control, such as the US and the UK. Section 1 outlines a framework of the basic agency problem between managers and shareholders and the corporate governance mechanisms that have evolved to address this problem. Section 2 deals with the relation between firm performance and inside ownership. Section 3 pertains to the relation between firm performance andmonitoring by large shareholders, monitoring by boards, and shareholder rights regarding takeover of the firm. Section 4 considers the relation between governance regulation and firm performance. Section 5 deals with the relation between governance and firm performance in family firms, and section 6 provides a summary and identifies some remaining puzzles and unresolved issues for future research.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Jones ◽  
Bing Xu ◽  
Konstantin Kamp

Purpose This paper aims to examine whether agency costs predict disciplinary takeover likelihood for the UK listed companies between 1986 and 2015. Design/methodology/approach Using survival analysis, the approach is to identify candidates for disciplinary takeover on the basis of Tobin’s Q (TQ), which is consistent with the approach advocated by Manne (1965). This study then examines how indicators of agency costs affect takeover likelihood within the set of disciplinary candidates. Findings This paper provides evidence of the effectiveness of TQ, rather than excess return, in identifying disciplinary takeover candidates. Takeover hazard for disciplinary candidates is higher for companies with higher levels of asset utilization and sales growth in particular. Companies with stronger agency problems are relatively less susceptible to disciplinary takeover. Practical implications Given the UK context of the study, where anti-takeover provisions are disallowed and when compared to findings of US studies, the results imply some support for the effectiveness of an open merger policy. Originality/value While the connection between takeover likelihood and the market for corporate control has been made in previous studies, the study adopts a more explicit agency theory framework than previous studies of takeover likelihood. A key component of the contribution follows from differentiating candidates for disciplinary takeovers from other forms of mergers and acquisitions.


Author(s):  
David Kershaw

This Chapter introduces the market for corporate control and provides theoretical and empirical context about the functioning and effects of the market for corporate control. Ideally such context should inform the analysis and evaluation of the Takeover Code’s regulation of the UK market for corporate control. However, as the Chapter shows, neither our understanding of the likely effects of the market for corporate control on companies, boards, shareholders and stakeholders, nor the state of empirical evidence provide clear cut guidance on how to regulate the market for corporate control. The Chapter considers evidence on the value effects of takeovers and shows that evidence from the short term market response to announced takeovers supports claims that takeovers in aggregate generate value, but the longer term evidence is more mixed and inconclusive. It also considers the methodological limitations of both the short term and long term evidence. The Chapter then proceeds to consider the effect of the market for corporate control on stakeholders. It explores the commonly held view that takeovers are detrimental for employees but finds again that the empirical evidence is inconclusive, although the theoretical case that takeover activity may undermine employee investment in the business remains compelling. The Chapter then explores the role of the market for corporate control as a governance device. It is often assumed that the market for corporate control acts as a disciplinary device holding managers to account, but as the Chapter shows the disciplinary effects work differently and less precisely than regulators and the public debate commonly assume. The Chapter also shows that such indirect effects may also mould management and board behaviour in economically suboptimal ways, which the Chapter considers in the context of the debate about the possible short term orientation of UK boards.


1993 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Venkiteswaran

As the Indian economy is being modernized through dismantling of rigid controls and greater reliance on market forces, the Indian industry is likely to witness major restructuring through a spate of mergers and acquisitions. This paper by N Venkiteswaran examines the historical impediments against corporate restructuring through mergers and takeovers in India. The author is of the view that given the economic compulsions, India is also about to witness significant growth in mergers and acquisitions in the coming years. In this emerging scenario, the importance of regulatory reforms covering a wide area such as competition, investor protection, taxation, corporate governance, etc. is underscored so that the Indian market for corporate control is developed along orderly lines.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Szu-Yin (Jennifer) Wu ◽  
Kee H. Chung

This paper shows that hedge fund activism is associated with a decrease in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and offer premiums and an increase in stock and operating performance. Activist hedge funds improve target firms’ M&A performance by reducing poor M&A, diversifying M&A, and the M&A of firms with multiple business segments. Activist hedge funds improve target firms’ M&A decisions by influencing their governance practices. We show that our results are unlikely driven by selection bias. Overall, activist hedge funds play an important role in the market for corporate control by increasing the efficiency of target firms’ M&A activities through interventions. This paper was accepted by Gustavo Manso, finance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document