The Validity of Deal Protection Devices under Anglo-American Law
This paper analyzes deal protection devices, specifically termination fees and lockup agreements, that are entered into by publicly listed target companies in favor of the bidders, under Anglo-American law. U.S. (specifically Delaware) and U.K. law and regulation differ markedly in the regulation of...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2009
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/5 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/1004/viewcontent/auto_convert.pdf |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Singapore Management University |
Language: | English |
id |
sg-smu-ink.sol_research-1004 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
sg-smu-ink.sol_research-10042010-09-21T08:40:04Z The Validity of Deal Protection Devices under Anglo-American Law WAN, Wai Yee This paper analyzes deal protection devices, specifically termination fees and lockup agreements, that are entered into by publicly listed target companies in favor of the bidders, under Anglo-American law. U.S. (specifically Delaware) and U.K. law and regulation differ markedly in the regulation of these devices. Delaware law generally gives more leeway for the target board to enter into deal protection devices. The U.K. regime is much more shareholder-centric and severely restricts most types of deal protections. This paper examines the differences and argues that the U.K. regime is the result of the strong influence of institutional share ownership. In contrast, in U.S., institutional share ownership is of more recent origin and market participants have instead pushed for greater board independence to counteract managerial self-interest. This paper also discusses the impact of recent trends, including changing shareholder ownership patterns and regulatory developments on the concepts of independence of outside directors and their impact on the substantive rules on deal protections. It concludes that while some modest changes to the substantive rules may be required, there is insufficient evidence to justify an overhaul of the rules in either jurisdiction. 2009-01-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/5 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/1004/viewcontent/auto_convert.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Takeovers Deal protections break fees Business Organizations Law |
institution |
Singapore Management University |
building |
SMU Libraries |
continent |
Asia |
country |
Singapore Singapore |
content_provider |
SMU Libraries |
collection |
InK@SMU |
language |
English |
topic |
Takeovers Deal protections break fees Business Organizations Law |
spellingShingle |
Takeovers Deal protections break fees Business Organizations Law WAN, Wai Yee The Validity of Deal Protection Devices under Anglo-American Law |
description |
This paper analyzes deal protection devices, specifically termination fees and lockup agreements, that are entered into by publicly listed target companies in favor of the bidders, under Anglo-American law. U.S. (specifically Delaware) and U.K. law and regulation differ markedly in the regulation of these devices. Delaware law generally gives more leeway for the target board to enter into deal protection devices. The U.K. regime is much more shareholder-centric and severely restricts most types of deal protections. This paper examines the differences and argues that the U.K. regime is the result of the strong influence of institutional share ownership. In contrast, in U.S., institutional share ownership is of more recent origin and market participants have instead pushed for greater board independence to counteract managerial self-interest. This paper also discusses the impact of recent trends, including changing shareholder ownership patterns and regulatory developments on the concepts of independence of outside directors and their impact on the substantive rules on deal protections. It concludes that while some modest changes to the substantive rules may be required, there is insufficient evidence to justify an overhaul of the rules in either jurisdiction. |
format |
text |
author |
WAN, Wai Yee |
author_facet |
WAN, Wai Yee |
author_sort |
WAN, Wai Yee |
title |
The Validity of Deal Protection Devices under Anglo-American Law |
title_short |
The Validity of Deal Protection Devices under Anglo-American Law |
title_full |
The Validity of Deal Protection Devices under Anglo-American Law |
title_fullStr |
The Validity of Deal Protection Devices under Anglo-American Law |
title_full_unstemmed |
The Validity of Deal Protection Devices under Anglo-American Law |
title_sort |
validity of deal protection devices under anglo-american law |
publisher |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University |
publishDate |
2009 |
url |
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/5 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/1004/viewcontent/auto_convert.pdf |
_version_ |
1772829574290210816 |