IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v7y1991i1p27-53.html

Using Auction Theory to Inform Takeover Regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Cramton, Peter
  • Schwartz, Alan

Abstract

This paper focuses on certain mechanisms that govern the sale of corporate assets. Under Delaware law, when a potential acquirer makes a serious bid for a target, the target's Board of Directors is required to act as would "auctioneers charged with getting the best price for the stock- holders at a sale of the company." The Delaware courts' preference for auctions follows from two premises. First, a firm's managers should maximize the value of their shareholders' investment in the company. Second, auctions maximize shareholder returns. The two premises together imply that a target's board should conduct an auction when at least two firms would bid sums that are nontrivially above the target's prebid market price.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Cramton, Peter & Schwartz, Alan, 1991. "Using Auction Theory to Inform Takeover Regulation," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 27-53, Spring.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:7:y:1991:i:1:p:27-53
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2016. "Stipulated Damages as a Rent-Extraction Mechanism: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 235-273, June.
    2. Toxvaerd, Flavio, 2008. "Strategic merger waves: A theory of musical chairs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 1-26, May.
    3. Audra L. Boone & J. Harold Mulherin, 2009. "Is There One Best Way to Sell a Company? Auctions Versus Negotiations and Controlled Sales1," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 21(3), pages 28-37, June.
    4. Neyland, Jordan & Shekhar, Chander, 2018. "How much is too much? Large termination fees and target distress," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-112.
    5. Bhattacharyya, Sugato & Singh, Rajdeep, 1999. "The resolution of bankruptcy by auction: allocating the residual right of design," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 269-294, December.
    6. Jeremy Bulow & Paul Klemperer, 2009. "Why Do Sellers (Usually) Prefer Auctions?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1544-1575, September.
    7. Dasgupta, Sudipto & Tsui, Kevin, 2003. "A "matching auction" for targets with heterogeneous bidders," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 331-364, October.
    8. Loyola, Gino, 2012. "Auctions vs. negotiations in takeovers with initial stakes," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 111-120.
    9. Gentry, Matthew & Stroup, Caleb, 2019. "Entry and competition in takeover auctions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(2), pages 298-324.
    10. S. Rosenkranz & U. Weitzel, 2005. "Bargaining in Mergers: The Role of Outside Options and Termination Provisions," Working Papers 05-32, Utrecht School of Economics.
    11. Ivaldi, Marc & Motis, Jrissy, 2007. "Mergers as Auctions," CEPR Discussion Papers 6434, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Loyola, Gino, 2008. "Optimal takeover contests with toeholds," UC3M Working papers. Economics we083217, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    13. Rosenkranz, Stephanie & Weitzel, Utz, 2007. "Bargaining in Mergers and Termination Fees," CEPR Discussion Papers 6210, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Fabel, Oliver & Kolmar, Martin, 2002. "Management takeover battles and the role of the golden handshake," Discussion Papers, Series I 319, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.
    15. Yeon-Koo Che & Tracy R. Lewis, 2007. "The role of lockups in takeover contests," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(3), pages 648-669, September.
    16. Marco Pagnozzi & Antonio Rosato, 2014. "Entry by Takeover: Auctions vs. Negotiations," CSEF Working Papers 353, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    17. Ian Ayres & Paul M. Goldbart, 2003. "Correlated Values in the Theory of Property and Liability Rules," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 121-151, January.
    18. Claudia Landeo & Kathryn Spier, 2012. "It Takes Three to Tango: An Experimental Study of Contracts with Stipulated Damages," Working Papers 2012-14, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    19. Portolano, Alessandro, 2000. "The decision to adopt defensive tactics in Italy," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 425-452, December.
    20. Jozsef Molnar, 2002. "Preemptive Horizontal Mergers: Theory and Evidence," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 0213, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    21. Glambosky, Mina & Gleason, Kimberly & Murdock, Maryna, 2015. "Political risk and the factors that affect international bids," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 68-83.
    22. Pagnozzi, Marco & Rosato, Antonio, 2016. "Entry by takeover: Auctions vs. bilateral negotiations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 68-84.
    23. Jozsef Molnar, 2002. "Preemptive Horizontal Mergers: Theory and Evidence," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 0213, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    24. Rosato, Antonio, 2008. "“Matching Auctions” for Hostile Takeovers: A Model with Endogenous Target," MPRA Paper 15083, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 07 Jan 2009.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:7:y:1991:i:1:p:27-53. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.