Freezeout, Compensation Rules and Voting Equilibria
A single proposer has the opportunity to generate a surplus by taking the assets of a group of individuals. These individuals are called upon to vote for accepting or rejecting the monetary offer made to them by the proposer, who needs the agreement of a qualified majority. The voters who rejected the offer while the qualified majority is met are frozen out but they can claim a compensation in exchange for their asset. This article analyses how compensation rules influence both the votes and the offer made by the proposer. We find that unanimity rule or compensation equals to the proposal or voters' initial wealth maximize the expected social surplus that entirely accrues to the proposer. We show that increasing the offer does not always increase the probability of acceptance, in sharp contrast to many close models. We identify the optimal offer when the compensation does not depend on the proposal. Increasing the compensation always reduces the expected social surplus and the expected profit of the proposer, but does not always benefit to the voters. Reinforcing the qualified majority always increases the expected profit of the proposer, and can decrease both the expected social surplus and the expected utility of the voters. When the compensation is based on the proposal we find that the success or the failure of the proposition depends crucially of the compensation's shape.
|Date of creation:||May 2013|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 45 D Avenue de l'observatoire, 25030 Besançon cedex|
Phone: 03 81 66 65 80
Fax: 03 81 66 65 76
Web page: http://crese.univ-fcomte.fr/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Yakov Amihud & Marcel Kahan & Rangarajan K. Sundaram, 2004. "The Foundations of Freezeout Laws in Takeovers," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1325-1344, 06.
- Hirshleifer, David & Titman, Sheridan, 1990. "Share Tendering Strategies and the Success of Hostile Takeover Bids," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(2), pages 295-324, April.
- Jeremy Bulow & Ming Huang & Paul Klemperer, 1999.
"Toeholds and Takeovers,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(3), pages 427-454, June.
- Jeremy Bulow & Ming Huang & Paul Klemperer, 1996. "Toeholds and Takeovers," Finance 9608001, EconWPA.
- Jeremy Bulow & Ming Huang & Paul Klemperer, 1999. "Toeholds and Takeovers," Finance 9903005, EconWPA.
- Bulow, Jeremy I. & Huang, Ming & Klemperer, Paul, 1996. "Toeholds and Takeovers," CEPR Discussion Papers 1486, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Miceli, Thomas J. & Segerson, Kathleen, 2007. "The Economics of Eminent Domain: Private Property, Public Use, and Just Compensation," Foundations and Trends(R) in Microeconomics, now publishers, vol. 3(4), pages 275-329, July.
- George J. Mailath & Andrew Postlewaite, 1990. "Asymmetric Information Bargaining Problems with Many Agents," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 57(3), pages 351-367.
- Strange William C., 1995. "Information, Holdouts, and Land Assembly," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 317-332, November.
- Holmstrom, Bengt & Nalebuff, Barry, 1992. "To the Raider Goes the Surplus? A Reexamination of the Free-Rider Problem," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 37-62, Spring.
- Burkart, Mike, 1995. " Initial Shareholdings and Overbidding in Takeover Contests," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(5), pages 1491-1515, December.
- Dewatripont, M., 1993. "The 'leading shareholder' strategy, takeover contests and stock price dynamics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 983-1004, June.
- Mathias Dewatripont, 1993. "The leading shareholder strategy, takeover contests and stock price dynamics," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9589, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Maug, Ernst, 2006. "Efficiency and fairness in minority freezeouts: Takeovers, overbidding, and the freeze-in problem," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 355-379, September.
- Mark Bagnoli, Barton L. Lipman, 1988. "Successful Takeovers without Exclusion," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 1(1), pages 89-110.
- Ferguson, Michael F, 1994. "Ownership Structure, Potential Competition, and the Free-Rider Problem in Tender Offers," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 35-62, April.
- Sanford J. Grossman & Oliver D. Hart, 1980. "Takeover Bids, the Free-Rider Problem, and the Theory of the Corporation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(1), pages 42-64, Spring.
- Bøhren, Øyvind & Krosvik, Nils Erik, 2013. "The economics of minority freezeouts: Evidence from the courtroom," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 48-58.
- Guhan Subramanian, 2007. "Post-Siliconix Freeze-Outs: Theory and Evidence," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(1), pages 1-26, 01.
- Eckart, Wolfgang, 1985. "On the land assembly problem," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 364-378, November. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)