{"title":"一笔过分的交易——杀手级收购案例","authors":"T. Carlin, Nigel Finch, Guy B. Ford","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.937252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mergers and acquisitions have long been, and seem likely to remain, objects of fascination within the world of finance. While scholars puzzle over the theoretical motivations and value impacts of such transactions, practitioners devote their efforts to fueling what has become a burgeoning juggernaut.1 The result of these twin streams of effort has been the creation of an unresolved, though clearly important, paradox.","PeriodicalId":106641,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Deal Too Far - the Case of the Killer Acquisition\",\"authors\":\"T. Carlin, Nigel Finch, Guy B. Ford\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.937252\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mergers and acquisitions have long been, and seem likely to remain, objects of fascination within the world of finance. While scholars puzzle over the theoretical motivations and value impacts of such transactions, practitioners devote their efforts to fueling what has become a burgeoning juggernaut.1 The result of these twin streams of effort has been the creation of an unresolved, though clearly important, paradox.\",\"PeriodicalId\":106641,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.937252\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.937252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Deal Too Far - the Case of the Killer Acquisition
Mergers and acquisitions have long been, and seem likely to remain, objects of fascination within the world of finance. While scholars puzzle over the theoretical motivations and value impacts of such transactions, practitioners devote their efforts to fueling what has become a burgeoning juggernaut.1 The result of these twin streams of effort has been the creation of an unresolved, though clearly important, paradox.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
