IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00937543.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Equal opportunity rule vs. market rule in transfer of control: How can private benefits help to provide an answer?

Author

Listed:
  • Hubert De La Bruslerie

    () (DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris-Dauphine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Having been introduced in the European Union and in many other countries, the equal opportunity rule is seen as protecting investors in the event of a transfer of control. This rule should be analyzed in a context of appropriation of private benefits between the new controlling shareholders and the outside investors. Both parties need to design a new implicit contract to share the firm's ownership. Using a signaling model, we show that the new controlling shareholder issues signals to outside shareholders to deliver private information on a firm's future economic return and her private rate of appropriation. The ownership stake of the controlling shareholder and the premium embedded in the acquisition price are key parameters. In a controlling ownership system, the equal opportunity rule modifies the relative behavior of controlling and outside shareholders. The quality of information deteriorates but the discipline on appropriation may become stronger

Suggested Citation

  • Hubert De La Bruslerie, 2013. "Equal opportunity rule vs. market rule in transfer of control: How can private benefits help to provide an answer?," Post-Print halshs-00937543, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00937543 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.07.007 Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00937543
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00937543/document
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barclay, Michael J. & Holderness, Clifford G., 1989. "Private benefits from control of public corporations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 371-395, December.
    2. Barclay, Michael J & Holderness, Clifford G, 1991. " Negotiated Block Trades and Corporate Control," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 46(3), pages 861-878, July.
    3. Doidge, Craig & Karolyi, G. Andrew & Stulz, Rene M., 2004. "Why are foreign firms listed in the U.S. worth more?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 205-238, February.
    4. Arturo Bris & Christos Cabolis, 2008. "The Value of Investor Protection: Firm Evidence from Cross-Border Mergers," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 21(2), pages 605-648, April.
    5. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1998. "Law and Finance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(6), pages 1113-1155, December.
    6. At, Christian & Chappe, Nathalie & Morand, Pierre-Henri, 2004. "Sentencing private benefits in takeover contest," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, pages 409-424.
    7. Leland, Hayne E & Pyle, David H, 1977. "Informational Asymmetries, Financial Structure, and Financial Intermediation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 32(2), pages 371-387, May.
    8. Mike Burkart & Denis Gromb & Fausto Panunzi, 2000. "Agency Conflicts in Public and Negotiated Transfers of Corporate Control," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(2), pages 647-677, April.
    9. Albuquerque, Rui & Schroth, Enrique, 2010. "Quantifying private benefits of control from a structural model of block trades," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 33-55, April.
    10. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-De-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 1999. "Corporate Ownership Around the World," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(2), pages 471-517, April.
    11. Carvalhal da Silva, Andre & Subrahmanyam, Avanidhar, 2007. "Dual-class premium, corporate governance, and the mandatory bid rule: Evidence from the Brazilian stock market," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, March.
    12. Erik Berglöf & Mike Burkart, 2003. "European takeover regulation," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 18(36), pages 171-213, April.
    13. Bergstrom, Clas & Hogfeldt, Peter & Molin, Johan, 1997. "The Optimality of the Mandatory Bid Rule," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 433-451, October.
    14. repec:hrv:faseco:30747162 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Lucian Arye Bebchuk, 1994. "Efficient and Inefficient Sales of Corporate Control," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(4), pages 957-993.
    16. Martin Holmén & Eugene Nivorozhkin, 2012. "Tender Offers versus Block Trades: Empirical Evidence," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(7-8), pages 511-529, October.
    17. Clifford G. Holderness, 2009. "The Myth of Diffuse Ownership in the United States," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(4), pages 1377-1408, April.
    18. 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.
    19. Audra L. Boone & J. Harold Mulherin, 2007. "How Are Firms Sold?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(2), pages 847-875, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Ying & Lahr, Henry, 2017. "Takeover law to protect shareholders: Increasing efficiency or merely redistributing gains?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 288-315.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-00937543. 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: (CCSD). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.