重新思考股票回购

IF 0.9 Q2 LAW
Hans Tjio
{"title":"重新思考股票回购","authors":"Hans Tjio","doi":"10.1093/cmlj/kmab009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><div><div>Key points</div><ul><li>Share buybacks have been widely used around the world for some time now. While the financial arguments for and against stock repurchases are still in the balance, there may be legal restrictions with respect to market abuse and capital maintenance, as was once the case in the USA and still is in the UK.</li><li>A recent Singapore decision suggested that buybacks to counter a short-selling attack may constitute market manipulation and this was reflected in a Singapore Exchange warning to listed companies against both insider trading and market manipulation with share repurchases. It was suggested that companies should look to repurchase their shares at the lowest price possible and also not at the close of the trading day. Empirical evidence supports those concerns.</li><li>Aside from securities regulation, many Commonwealth jurisdictions including Singapore and the UK, and the EU, continue to have corporate law rules on capital maintenance. The most important of these is the need for a solvency statement when a buyback is out of capital. However, there is the possibility of further relaxation of these rules in favour of the American position, which relies on fraudulent conveyance rules to control the process. But, while strictly unnecessary, the reality is that those rules are in turn usually dependent on a finding of insolvency, which in today’s climate is hard to prove <span style=\"font-style:italic;\">ex post</span> (and conversely costly to show <span style=\"font-style:italic;\">ex ante</span> with solvency statements).</li><li>It is suggested that the proper purpose rule, which requires directors to use powers that they have been given fairly when it comes to internal changes to the constitutional balance within a corporation, can explain the basis for existing securities regulation and capital maintenance rules. But even where these specific rules do not exist, it can provide guidance in the area of share buybacks generally, and buttress fraudulent conveyance rules.</li><li>The duty to act properly towards the ‘reasonable shareholder’ with respect to share repurchases is to buyback at the lowest possible price in the market when the company does not require funding given present needs and future exigencies. This seeks to maintain the priority structures that have allowed the company to succeed more than other business vehicles, and is different from present day talk of corporate purposes which may be too indeterminate.</li></ul></div></span>","PeriodicalId":43720,"journal":{"name":"Capital Markets Law Journal","volume":"186 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking share repurchases\",\"authors\":\"Hans Tjio\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cmlj/kmab009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span><div><div>Key points</div><ul><li>Share buybacks have been widely used around the world for some time now. While the financial arguments for and against stock repurchases are still in the balance, there may be legal restrictions with respect to market abuse and capital maintenance, as was once the case in the USA and still is in the UK.</li><li>A recent Singapore decision suggested that buybacks to counter a short-selling attack may constitute market manipulation and this was reflected in a Singapore Exchange warning to listed companies against both insider trading and market manipulation with share repurchases. It was suggested that companies should look to repurchase their shares at the lowest price possible and also not at the close of the trading day. Empirical evidence supports those concerns.</li><li>Aside from securities regulation, many Commonwealth jurisdictions including Singapore and the UK, and the EU, continue to have corporate law rules on capital maintenance. The most important of these is the need for a solvency statement when a buyback is out of capital. However, there is the possibility of further relaxation of these rules in favour of the American position, which relies on fraudulent conveyance rules to control the process. But, while strictly unnecessary, the reality is that those rules are in turn usually dependent on a finding of insolvency, which in today’s climate is hard to prove <span style=\\\"font-style:italic;\\\">ex post</span> (and conversely costly to show <span style=\\\"font-style:italic;\\\">ex ante</span> with solvency statements).</li><li>It is suggested that the proper purpose rule, which requires directors to use powers that they have been given fairly when it comes to internal changes to the constitutional balance within a corporation, can explain the basis for existing securities regulation and capital maintenance rules. But even where these specific rules do not exist, it can provide guidance in the area of share buybacks generally, and buttress fraudulent conveyance rules.</li><li>The duty to act properly towards the ‘reasonable shareholder’ with respect to share repurchases is to buyback at the lowest possible price in the market when the company does not require funding given present needs and future exigencies. This seeks to maintain the priority structures that have allowed the company to succeed more than other business vehicles, and is different from present day talk of corporate purposes which may be too indeterminate.</li></ul></div></span>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Capital Markets Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"186 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Capital Markets Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cmlj/kmab009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Capital Markets Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cmlj/kmab009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

股票回购在全球范围内广泛应用已有一段时间了。虽然支持和反对股票回购的财务论据仍处于平衡状态,但在市场滥用和资本维护方面可能存在法律限制,就像曾经在美国和现在在英国的情况一样。新加坡最近的一项决定表明,为应对卖空攻击而进行的回购可能构成市场操纵。新加坡交易所(Singapore Exchange)警告上市公司,不要进行内幕交易,也不要通过股票回购操纵市场,就反映了这一点。有人建议,公司应该考虑以尽可能低的价格回购股票,而且不要在交易日结束时回购。经验证据支持这些担忧。除证券监管外,包括新加坡和英国在内的许多英联邦司法管辖区以及欧盟(EU),仍有关于资本维持的公司法规定。其中最重要的是,当回购资金不足时,需要一份偿付能力声明。然而,有可能进一步放宽这些规则,以有利于美国的立场,美国的立场依赖于欺诈性转让规则来控制这一过程。但是,尽管完全没有必要,但现实情况是,这些规则通常反过来取决于资不抵债的发现,而在今天的环境下,这很难事后证明(反过来,在偿债能力声明中预先证明成本很高)。有人建议,正当目的规则可以解释现行证券监管和资本维持规则的基础。正当目的规则要求董事在公司内部改变宪法平衡时公平地使用被赋予的权力。但即使这些具体规则不存在,它也可以在股票回购领域提供一般指导,并支持欺诈性转让规则。在股票回购方面,对“合理股东”采取适当行动的责任是,在公司不需要融资的情况下,以市场上尽可能低的价格回购股票。这是为了保持优先级结构,使公司比其他商业工具更成功,这与目前谈论的公司目的可能太不确定不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking share repurchases
Key points
  • Share buybacks have been widely used around the world for some time now. While the financial arguments for and against stock repurchases are still in the balance, there may be legal restrictions with respect to market abuse and capital maintenance, as was once the case in the USA and still is in the UK.
  • A recent Singapore decision suggested that buybacks to counter a short-selling attack may constitute market manipulation and this was reflected in a Singapore Exchange warning to listed companies against both insider trading and market manipulation with share repurchases. It was suggested that companies should look to repurchase their shares at the lowest price possible and also not at the close of the trading day. Empirical evidence supports those concerns.
  • Aside from securities regulation, many Commonwealth jurisdictions including Singapore and the UK, and the EU, continue to have corporate law rules on capital maintenance. The most important of these is the need for a solvency statement when a buyback is out of capital. However, there is the possibility of further relaxation of these rules in favour of the American position, which relies on fraudulent conveyance rules to control the process. But, while strictly unnecessary, the reality is that those rules are in turn usually dependent on a finding of insolvency, which in today’s climate is hard to prove ex post (and conversely costly to show ex ante with solvency statements).
  • It is suggested that the proper purpose rule, which requires directors to use powers that they have been given fairly when it comes to internal changes to the constitutional balance within a corporation, can explain the basis for existing securities regulation and capital maintenance rules. But even where these specific rules do not exist, it can provide guidance in the area of share buybacks generally, and buttress fraudulent conveyance rules.
  • The duty to act properly towards the ‘reasonable shareholder’ with respect to share repurchases is to buyback at the lowest possible price in the market when the company does not require funding given present needs and future exigencies. This seeks to maintain the priority structures that have allowed the company to succeed more than other business vehicles, and is different from present day talk of corporate purposes which may be too indeterminate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: This journal is essential for all serious capital markets practitioners and for academics with an interest in this growing field around the World. It is the first periodical to focus entirely on aspects related to capital markets for lawyers and covers all of the fields within this practice area: Debt; Derivatives; Equity; High Yield Products; Securitisation; and Repackaging. With an international perspective, each issue covers articles and news relevant to the financial centres in the US, Europe and Asia. The journal provides a mix of thoughtful and in-depth consideration of the law and practice of capital markets through analytical articles on topical issues written by leading practitioners and academics in the international arena. There are also articles on matters of best practice and opinion on legal and practice developments from around the world. In particular the journal offers: • Unique specialist coverage of international capital markets practice • High level of analysis for experienced lawyers and academics • Team of internationally respected editors from leading centres in the US, Europe and Asia • Quality of articles assured through peer review system.
×
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