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
  • [41] Boards, takeover protection, and real earnings management
    Ge W.
    Kim J.-B.
    [J]. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 2014, 43 (4) : 651 - 682
  • [42] Channels of convergence: investor engagement and interlocked directorates
    Gray, Taylor R.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A-ECONOMY AND SPACE, 2011, 43 (09): : 2202 - 2216
  • [43] CEO Incentives, Takeover Protection and Corporate Innovation
    Mazouz, Khelifa
    Zhao, Yang
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, 2019, 30 (02) : 494 - 515
  • [44] INVESTOR PROTECTION AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
    SMITH, DA
    [J]. REAL ESTATE REVIEW, 1989, 19 (02): : 14 - 19
  • [45] INVESTOR PROTECTION AND FINANCIAL SYSTEMS STRUCTURE
    Kozlowski, Tomasz
    [J]. EKONOMIA I PRAWO-ECONOMICS AND LAW, 2006, 2 (01): : 49 - 66
  • [46] Investor protection and stock crash risk
    Zhang, Hongliang
    Wang, Mengying
    Jiang, Jie
    [J]. PACIFIC-BASIN FINANCE JOURNAL, 2017, 43 : 256 - 266
  • [47] Behavioural Finance and Investor Protection Regulations
    Spindler G.
    [J]. Journal of Consumer Policy, 2011, 34 (3) : 315 - 336
  • [48] STATE EQUITY CROWDFUNDING AND INVESTOR PROTECTION
    Pierce-Wright, Christopher H.
    [J]. WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW, 2016, 91 (02) : 847 - 886
  • [49] THE ENDOGENOUS OPTIMIZATION MECHANISM OF INVESTOR PROTECTION
    Yang Yong
    [J]. 2009 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, INNOVATION MANAGEMENT AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING, VOL 1, PROCEEDINGS, 2009, : 367 - 370
  • [50] The Mortgage Meltdown and the Failure of Investor Protection
    Adelson, Mark
    [J]. JOURNAL OF STRUCTURED FINANCE, 2020, 26 (01): : 63 - 86