Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Irreconcilable Differences: Judicial Resolution of Business Deadlock

Contents:

Author Info

  • Landeo, Claudia

    ()
    (University of Alberta, Department of Economics)

  • Spier, Kathryn

    ()
    (Harvard Law School)

Abstract

This article studies the judicial resolution of business deadlock. Asset valuation, a necessary component of business divorce procedures, can pose serious problems in case of closely-held businesses such as general partnerships and limited liability companies (LLCs). Courts face the challenge of designing valuation mechanisms that will trigger the owners to truthfully reveal their private information. We theoretically and experimentally assess the ex post judicial design and properties of judicially-mandated Shotgun and Private Auction mechanisms. In the former mechanism, the court would require one owner to name a buy-sell price, and the other owner would be required to either buy or sell his or her shares at the named price. In the latter mechanism, the court would mandate both owners to simultaneously submit a price to buy the other owner's assets. Our experimental findings support our theory: The Shotgun mechanism with an informed offeror is superior to the Private Auction in terms of an equity criterion. In the Shotgun mechanism, the informed offeror has an incentive to truthfully reveal his private information and, as a result, an equitable outcome is more likely to be achieved. The analysis presented in this article provides an equity rationale for the judicial implementation of the Shotgun mechanism in business divorce cases, and demonstrates the empirical feasibility of our proposal.

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/WP2013-09-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 2013-9.

as in new window
Length: 37 pages
Date of creation: 01 Jul 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ris:albaec:2013_009

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; limited liability companies; closely-held business entities; shotgun provisions; buy-sell clauses; cake-cutting mechanisms; auctions; 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 & Spier, Kathryn, 2013. "Shotgun Mechanisms for Common-Value Partnerships: The Unassigned-Offeror Problem," Working Papers 2013-10, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.

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_009. 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.