私募股权控股公司首次公开发行(ipo)后收购:是否存在流动性冲突的证据?

M. Slovin, M. Sushka, Qingma Dong
{"title":"私募股权控股公司首次公开发行(ipo)后收购:是否存在流动性冲突的证据?","authors":"M. Slovin, M. Sushka, Qingma Dong","doi":"10.1086/713357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We analyze third-party takeovers of listed firms in which private-equity sponsors retained substantial post-initial-public-offering block holdings. Targets obtain large gains in shareholder wealth that are shared pro rata between sponsors and other shareholders, even though Delaware law allows differential premiums for block holders. Targets’ gains are positively related to the size of sponsors’ holdings and negatively affected by having a special committee that excludes private-equity directors. After Delaware courts evinced concern about a liquidity conflict associated with large block holders, private-equity-controlled target firms became more sensitive to the risk of litigation, as indicated by an increase in the likelihood of a special committee and a go-shop clause as sponsors’ block size increases. Our evidence is not consistent with plaintiffs’ arguments that even when equal compensation is paid in third-party takeovers, private equity engenders a liquidity conflict with other shareholders that calls for heightened legal scrutiny.","PeriodicalId":22657,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Law and Economics","volume":"13 1","pages":"367 - 402"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Post-Initial-Public-Offering Takeovers of Firms Controlled by Private Equity: Is There Evidence of a Liquidity Conflict?\",\"authors\":\"M. Slovin, M. Sushka, Qingma Dong\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/713357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We analyze third-party takeovers of listed firms in which private-equity sponsors retained substantial post-initial-public-offering block holdings. Targets obtain large gains in shareholder wealth that are shared pro rata between sponsors and other shareholders, even though Delaware law allows differential premiums for block holders. Targets’ gains are positively related to the size of sponsors’ holdings and negatively affected by having a special committee that excludes private-equity directors. After Delaware courts evinced concern about a liquidity conflict associated with large block holders, private-equity-controlled target firms became more sensitive to the risk of litigation, as indicated by an increase in the likelihood of a special committee and a go-shop clause as sponsors’ block size increases. Our evidence is not consistent with plaintiffs’ arguments that even when equal compensation is paid in third-party takeovers, private equity engenders a liquidity conflict with other shareholders that calls for heightened legal scrutiny.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Law and Economics\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"367 - 402\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Law and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/713357\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Law and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/713357","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们分析了第三方收购上市公司的案例,其中私募股权发起人在首次公开发行(ipo)后保留了大量股权。尽管特拉华州的法律允许大股东享有差别溢价,但被收购公司从股东财富中获得的巨大收益由发起人和其他股东按比例分享。目标公司的收益与发起人持股的规模呈正相关,而受排除私募股权董事的特别委员会的负面影响。在特拉华州法院对与大股东相关的流动性冲突表示担忧之后,私募股权控制的目标公司对诉讼风险变得更加敏感,这可以从特别委员会的可能性增加以及随着发起人持股规模的增加而增加的咨询条款中看出。我们的证据与原告的论点不一致,即即使在第三方收购中支付了同等的补偿,私人股本也会与其他股东产生流动性冲突,这需要加强法律审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Post-Initial-Public-Offering Takeovers of Firms Controlled by Private Equity: Is There Evidence of a Liquidity Conflict?
We analyze third-party takeovers of listed firms in which private-equity sponsors retained substantial post-initial-public-offering block holdings. Targets obtain large gains in shareholder wealth that are shared pro rata between sponsors and other shareholders, even though Delaware law allows differential premiums for block holders. Targets’ gains are positively related to the size of sponsors’ holdings and negatively affected by having a special committee that excludes private-equity directors. After Delaware courts evinced concern about a liquidity conflict associated with large block holders, private-equity-controlled target firms became more sensitive to the risk of litigation, as indicated by an increase in the likelihood of a special committee and a go-shop clause as sponsors’ block size increases. Our evidence is not consistent with plaintiffs’ arguments that even when equal compensation is paid in third-party takeovers, private equity engenders a liquidity conflict with other shareholders that calls for heightened legal scrutiny.
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
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