Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Shotguns and Deadlocks

Contents:

Author Info

Abstract

Business divorce is an arduous affair. The process of resolving deadlocks is time consuming and expensive, typically requiring the services of lawyers, financial experts and judges. Prolonged resolution processes, cost-inefficient administration of those processes, and inequitable outcomes impose high monetary and non-monetary costs on the parties themselves and on society as a whole. Asset valuation, which is required to complete the transfer of assets in a business divorce, can pose particular problems for closely-held businesses.In contrast to publicly-traded companies with active markets for equity ownership, closely-held companies may be very difficult for outsider investors and appraisers to evaluate. The economic value of closely-held businesses is often intertwined with the human capital of the founders, their relationships with business associates (including key suppliers and customers), and their tacit business knowledge. The true economic value of closely-held businesses may not be fully reflected in the official business documents and financial statements; instead, the best wisdom concerning the value of the business may lie in the minds of the business owners themselves. This article studies business deadlocks and their resolution. We advance a proposal to reform the way that courts resolve business deadlocks and value business assets. Specifically, we argue that Shotgun mechanisms, where one owner names a single buy-sell price and the other owner is compelled to either buy or sell shares at the named price, should play a larger role in the judicial management of business divorce. Since the party proposing the offer may end up either buying or selling shares, the party has an incentive to identify and name a fair price. Thus, accurate asset valuation is achieved without the use of outside appraisers or inefficient public auctions. We also show that our proposal is aligned with current statutory rules and case law. General partnerships and limited liability companies (LLCs), the most commonly chosen legal entities, are the focus of this study. Important lessons and insights for the judicial resolution of business deadlock are derived from our analysis of the private design and implementation of Shotgun provisions. Although Shotgun provisions have the potential for achieving equitable, expedient, and cost-efficient outcomes, these mechanisms pose challenges in private contractual settings, including the risk of opportunistic behaviors by owners who are at an informational or financial advantage. We argue that these risks are less severe in the judicial context than they are in the private context. Since courts have the ability to design the Shotgun procedure ex-post rather than ex-ante, they are in a better position to identify the presence and nature of the asymmetries and to tailor the mechanism accordingly. Although our arguments regarding the benefits of ex-post judicial design of Shotgun mechanisms are logically consistent and supported by current legal cases, actual field data on the use of these mechanisms is not available. To begin to fill this void, we conducted a series of controlled laboratory experiments with human subjects to assess whether the Shotgun mechanism will have the predicted effects. Our experimental design simulated a deadlocked business venture with two owners where only one of the two owners knew the true value of the business assets. Two different treatments were considered. In the first treatment, the better-informed owner was compelled to make buy-sell offer; in the second treatment, the less-informed owner was compelled to make the buy-sell offer. Our experimental findings support our arguments: (1) Inequitable outcomes arose when the less-informed owner made the buysell offer, and (2) equitable outcomes were obtained when the better informed owner made the buy-sell offer. Specifically, when obligated to make a buy-sell offer, the better-informed owner truthfully revealed his private information to the less-informed owner. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first experimental study of mandatory Shotgun mechanisms where one party knows the value of the assets while the other does not. Our analysis demonstrates that the application of Shotgun mechanisms by judges when they are called upon to resolve deadlocks and manage business divorce will serve the interests of the business parties themselves and, more generally, the interest of society as a whole.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.economics.ualberta.ca/~/media/economics/FacultyAndStaff/WPs/WP2013-05-Landeo-Spier
File Function: Full text
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University of Alberta, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 2013-5.

as in new window
Length: 60 pages
Date of creation: 01 May 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ris:albaec:2013_005

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 8-14 HM Tory, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H4
Phone: (780) 492-3406
Fax: (780) 492-3300
Web page: http://www.economics.ualberta.ca/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: judicial resolution of business deadlocks; general partnerships; liited liabiity companies; closely-held business entities; shotgun provisions; buy-sell clauses; cake-cutting mechanisms; bargaining with common values; asymmetric information; experiments;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Landeo, Claudia M. & Spier, Kathryn E., 2013. "Shotgun mechanisms for common-value partnerships: The unassigned-offeror problem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 390-394.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:albaec:2013_005. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Brenda Carrier).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.