Investor protection: effects of takeover convergence

被引:2
|
作者
Dixit, Jyoti [1 ]
Singh, Poonam [2 ]
Haldar, Arunima [3 ]
机构
[1] Natl Inst Ind Engn, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
[2] Natl Inst Ind Engn, Dept Finance & Econ, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
[3] SP Jain Inst Management & Res, Dept Finance, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
关键词
India; Corporate governance; Convergence; Investor protection; Takeover regulation; G34; G30; B27; G38; CORPORATE-OWNERSHIP; EMERGING MARKETS; BOARD; FAMILY; MATTER; LAW;
D O I
10.1108/IJOA-05-2021-2741
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Purpose Takeovers play a critical role as an external corporate governance mechanism to ensure investor protection. There is a long-standing debate on whether the convergence of corporate governance to global standards can enable emerging economies to ensure investor protection. This paper aims to analyse the evolution of the takeover code, namely, Securities Exchange Board of India's Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers (2011) in India from the lens of investor protection. It then compares the takeover provisions in India, the USA, the UK, Singapore and Australia to examine the extent of convergence and its implications for investor protection. Design/methodology/approach Using a cross-national comparative analysis of takeover mechanisms in common law countries, the study analyses the extent and relevance of convergence in form. The focus of the comparison is on regulations governing offer size, offer price, creeping acquisition and initial trigger limit for the mandatory open offer. Findings The findings suggest that certain provisions such as the initial trigger threshold for the mandatory offer and the offer prices of the Indian takeover code are converging with the standards in common law countries. However, the offer price determination based on market prices may not reflect true market value in an inefficient market like India. Other provisions such as creeping acquisition and offer size are not only diverging from the international standards but are also inconsistent with the key objective of investor protections of the Indian regulator. Research limitations/implications Indian takeover regulation needs to converge to higher global standards to ensure adherence to improved investor protection. This needs to be done for the initial trigger limit for mandatory bid and offer prices, after accounting for the differences in institutional structure. The Indian regulators need to revisit provisions on the initial trigger, creeping acquisition to converge to the broader principle of investor protection. Originality/value This technical paper provides a comprehensive depiction of takeover mechanisms in an emerging economy context as a means of investor protection. Further using a comparative lens, it analyses the relevance of convergence of takeover laws. Thus, advances the theoretical knowledge of limited extant work on external corporate governance mechanism in an emerging economy context.
引用
收藏
页码:889 / 906
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Investor Protection and Takeover in Chinese Securities Market
    Zeng Zhaozao
    Li Shanmin
    Chen Yugang
    [J]. STATISTIC APPLICATION IN MACROECONOMY AND INDUSTRY SECTORS, 2010, : 612 - 618
  • [2] Takeover bids, unconditional offer price and investor protection
    de La Bruslerie, Hubert
    Deffains-Crapsky, Catherine
    [J]. REVIEW OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 2005, 14 (02) : 103 - 126
  • [3] What is the relationship between investor protection legislation and target takeover returns? Evidence from Europe
    Anderson, Hamish D.
    Marshall, Ben R.
    Wales, Ryan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MULTINATIONAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 2009, 19 (04) : 291 - 305
  • [4] Does investor misvaluation drive the takeover market?
    Dong, M
    Hirshleifer, D
    Richardson, S
    Teoh, SH
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FINANCE, 2006, 61 (02): : 725 - 762
  • [5] INVESTOR SIMMONS,HAROLD - HIS PERSONAL TAKEOVER PHILOSOPHY
    SIMMONS, H
    [J]. CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS, 1990, 68 (22) : 11 - 15
  • [6] Schulman aviods hostile takeover with new investor agreement
    MacDonald, V
    [J]. CHEMICAL WEEK, 2005, 167 (36) : 8 - 8
  • [7] Investor protection effects on corporate liquidity and the cost of capital
    Chhabra, Monish
    Ferris, Stephen P.
    Sen, Nilanjan
    [J]. APPLIED ECONOMICS LETTERS, 2009, 16 (08) : 819 - 826
  • [8] Takeover Protection and Firm Value
    Andres, Christian
    Jacob, Martin
    Ulrich, Lennart
    [J]. REVIEW OF LAW & ECONOMICS, 2019, 15 (01)
  • [9] INVESTOR PROTECTION IN REORGANIZATION
    Panuch, J. Anthony
    [J]. HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, 1940, 19 (01) : 21 - 32
  • [10] RETHINKING INVESTOR PROTECTION
    Wheatley, Martin
    [J]. JASSA-THE FINSIA JOURNAL OF APPLIED FINANCE, 2011, (02): : 6 - 10