The Validity of Deal Protection Devices in Negotiatiated Acquisition or Merger Transactions under Anglo-American Law

This paper analyses deal protection devices, specifically termination fees and lockup agreements, that are entered into by publicly listed target companies in favour of the preferred bidders, under Anglo-American law. US (specifically Delaware) and UK law and regulation differ markedly in the regula...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: WAN, Wai Yee
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2010
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/927
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/1926/viewcontent/WanYValidityDealProtectionDevices_Preprint.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-1926
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sol_research-19262015-01-30T02:17:49Z The Validity of Deal Protection Devices in Negotiatiated Acquisition or Merger Transactions under Anglo-American Law WAN, Wai Yee This paper analyses deal protection devices, specifically termination fees and lockup agreements, that are entered into by publicly listed target companies in favour of the preferred bidders, under Anglo-American law. US (specifically Delaware) and UK 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 UK regime is much more shareholder-centric and severely restricts most types of deal protections. This paper explains the differences and argues that the UK regime is the result of the strong influence of institutional share ownership. In contrast, in US, 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. 2010-04-01T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/927 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/1926/viewcontent/WanYValidityDealProtectionDevices_Preprint.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 in Negotiatiated Acquisition or Merger Transactions under Anglo-American Law
description This paper analyses deal protection devices, specifically termination fees and lockup agreements, that are entered into by publicly listed target companies in favour of the preferred bidders, under Anglo-American law. US (specifically Delaware) and UK 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 UK regime is much more shareholder-centric and severely restricts most types of deal protections. This paper explains the differences and argues that the UK regime is the result of the strong influence of institutional share ownership. In contrast, in US, 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 in Negotiatiated Acquisition or Merger Transactions under Anglo-American Law
title_short The Validity of Deal Protection Devices in Negotiatiated Acquisition or Merger Transactions under Anglo-American Law
title_full The Validity of Deal Protection Devices in Negotiatiated Acquisition or Merger Transactions under Anglo-American Law
title_fullStr The Validity of Deal Protection Devices in Negotiatiated Acquisition or Merger Transactions under Anglo-American Law
title_full_unstemmed The Validity of Deal Protection Devices in Negotiatiated Acquisition or Merger Transactions under Anglo-American Law
title_sort validity of deal protection devices in negotiatiated acquisition or merger transactions under anglo-american law
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2010
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/927
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/1926/viewcontent/WanYValidityDealProtectionDevices_Preprint.pdf
_version_ 1772829589140144128