The Effect of Prohibiting Deal Protection in M&A: Evidence from the United Kingdom

Fernán Restrepo, Guhan Subramanian
{"title":"The Effect of Prohibiting Deal Protection in M&A: Evidence from the United Kingdom","authors":"Fernán Restrepo, Guhan Subramanian","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2820434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since 2011, the U.K. has prohibited all deal protections – including termination fees – in M&A deals. Prior to 2011, the U.K. permitted termination fees up to 1% of deal value and there was no prohibition on other protection devices. We examine the effect of this regulatory change on deal volumes, the incidence of competing offers, deal jumping rates, deal premiums, and completion rates in the U.K., relative to the other European G-10 countries. We find that M&A deal volumes in the U.K. declined significantly in the aftermath of the 2011 Reforms, relative to deal volumes in the European G-10 countries. We find no countervailing benefits to target shareholders in the form of higher deal premiums or more competing bids. Completion rates and deal jumping rates also remained unchanged. We estimate that the incidence-rate ratio of U.K. deals to non-UK deals after the reform was approximately 50% the incidence-rate ratio of U.K. deals to non-U.K. deals prior to the reform. In addition, we estimate USD 19.3 billion in lost deal volumes per quarter in the U.K. relative to the control group due to the 2011 Reforms, implying a quarterly loss of USD 3.2 billion for shareholders of U.K. companies. Our results suggest that deal protections provide an important social welfare benefit by facilitating the initiation of M&A deals.","PeriodicalId":10698,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Law & Finance eJournal","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Law & Finance eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2820434","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Since 2011, the U.K. has prohibited all deal protections – including termination fees – in M&A deals. Prior to 2011, the U.K. permitted termination fees up to 1% of deal value and there was no prohibition on other protection devices. We examine the effect of this regulatory change on deal volumes, the incidence of competing offers, deal jumping rates, deal premiums, and completion rates in the U.K., relative to the other European G-10 countries. We find that M&A deal volumes in the U.K. declined significantly in the aftermath of the 2011 Reforms, relative to deal volumes in the European G-10 countries. We find no countervailing benefits to target shareholders in the form of higher deal premiums or more competing bids. Completion rates and deal jumping rates also remained unchanged. We estimate that the incidence-rate ratio of U.K. deals to non-UK deals after the reform was approximately 50% the incidence-rate ratio of U.K. deals to non-U.K. deals prior to the reform. In addition, we estimate USD 19.3 billion in lost deal volumes per quarter in the U.K. relative to the control group due to the 2011 Reforms, implying a quarterly loss of USD 3.2 billion for shareholders of U.K. companies. Our results suggest that deal protections provide an important social welfare benefit by facilitating the initiation of M&A deals.
禁止交易保护在并购中的作用:来自英国的证据
自2011年以来,英国已禁止在并购交易中提供包括终止费在内的所有交易保护。在2011年之前,英国允许的终止费最高为交易价值的1%,并且没有禁止使用其他保护措施。我们研究了这一监管变化对交易量、竞争要约发生率、交易跳跃率、交易溢价和完成率的影响,在英国,相对于其他欧洲G-10国家。我们发现,在2011年改革之后,相对于欧洲十国集团(G-10)国家的并购交易量,英国的并购交易量显著下降。我们没有发现更高的交易溢价或更具竞争性的出价会给目标股东带来抵消性利益。交易完成率和跳跃率也保持不变。我们估计,改革后英国交易与非英国交易的发生率比约为英国交易与非英国交易的发生率比的50%。改革前的交易。此外,我们估计,由于2011年的改革,与对照组相比,英国每季度的交易量损失为193亿美元,这意味着英国公司股东的季度损失为32亿美元。我们的研究结果表明,交易保护通过促进并购交易的发起提供了重要的社会福利效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信