DEAL PROCESS DESIGN IN MANAGEMENT BUYOUTS

Management buyouts (MBOs) are an economically and legally significant class of transaction: not only do they account for more than $10 billion in deal volume per year, on average, but they also play an important role in defining the relationship between inside and outside shareholders in every publi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Harvard law review 2016-12, Vol.130 (2), p.590-658
1. Verfasser: Subramanian, Guhan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 658
container_issue 2
container_start_page 590
container_title Harvard law review
container_volume 130
creator Subramanian, Guhan
description Management buyouts (MBOs) are an economically and legally significant class of transaction: not only do they account for more than $10 billion in deal volume per year, on average, but they also play an important role in defining the relationship between inside and outside shareholders in every public company. Delaware courts and lawyers in transactional practice rely heavily on "market-check" processes to ensure that exiting shareholders receive fair value in MBOs. This Article identifies four factors that create an unlevel playing field in that market check: information asymmetries, valuable management, management financial incentives to discourage overbids, and the "ticking-clock" problem. This taxonomy of four factors allows special committees and their advisors to assess the degree to which the playing field is level in an MBO, and (by extension) the extent to which a market canvass can provide a meaningful check on the buyout price. This Article then identifies more potent deal process tools that special committees can use to level the playing field: for example, contractual commitments from management that allow the board to run the process; pre-signingpre-signing rather than post-signing market checks; information rights rather than match rights; ex ante inducement fees; and approval from a majority of the disinterested shares. This Article also identifies ways that the Delaware courts can encourage the use of these more potent devices when appropriate: through the threat of entire fairness review, the application of Revlon duties, and the weight given to the deal price in appraisal proceedings. The result would be improved deal process design in MBOs and improved capital formation in the economy overall.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1880389421</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A472372026</galeid><informt_id>10.3316/agispt.20191004017974</informt_id><jstor_id>44072387</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A472372026</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g478t-d4465fbf7c40d7bb0091017cccc89d5bc5563a96c5b5e0c53caf07e866c0a5463</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkdFq2zAUhs1oYVm7RxgYetPCXCRLluRLL_USQ5qMJYHuSsiy7Cg4dibJsL591aZjy5abSiCB9P3fOXDeBaMYEhillDycBSMAII0YhA_vgw_WbgEABFE8Cm7u8mwWfvu-GOfLZXiXL4vJPCzm4X02zyb5fT5fhV_WPxbr1fIyOK9Fa9XH1_siWH_NV-NpNFtMinE2ixpMmYsqjElSlzWVGFS0LAFIoa8t_WJplZQySQgSKZFJmSggEyRFDahihEggEkzQRXB98O5N_3NQ1vGdtlK1rehUP1gOWQoxhjFlHr36B932g-l8d55iALEUx_AP1YhWcd3VvTNCPkt5hmmMaAzi57LRCapRnTKi7TtVa_98xN-e4P2u1E7Lk4Gbo4BnnPrlGjFYy4tpccx-_ostB6s7Zf1hdbNx9hA5wmcH3Oy046LRdu_4xrm95ZVw4qW7l6_eNLzqNYeAIwTJbzQG0A8JYD-nlGKvm_6vs0oYuXm76tNBtbWuN3xv9E6YR44x8M0zip4AStDL3g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1880389421</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>DEAL PROCESS DESIGN IN MANAGEMENT BUYOUTS</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Subramanian, Guhan</creator><creatorcontrib>Subramanian, Guhan</creatorcontrib><description>Management buyouts (MBOs) are an economically and legally significant class of transaction: not only do they account for more than $10 billion in deal volume per year, on average, but they also play an important role in defining the relationship between inside and outside shareholders in every public company. Delaware courts and lawyers in transactional practice rely heavily on "market-check" processes to ensure that exiting shareholders receive fair value in MBOs. This Article identifies four factors that create an unlevel playing field in that market check: information asymmetries, valuable management, management financial incentives to discourage overbids, and the "ticking-clock" problem. This taxonomy of four factors allows special committees and their advisors to assess the degree to which the playing field is level in an MBO, and (by extension) the extent to which a market canvass can provide a meaningful check on the buyout price. This Article then identifies more potent deal process tools that special committees can use to level the playing field: for example, contractual commitments from management that allow the board to run the process; pre-signingpre-signing rather than post-signing market checks; information rights rather than match rights; ex ante inducement fees; and approval from a majority of the disinterested shares. This Article also identifies ways that the Delaware courts can encourage the use of these more potent devices when appropriate: through the threat of entire fairness review, the application of Revlon duties, and the weight given to the deal price in appraisal proceedings. The result would be improved deal process design in MBOs and improved capital formation in the economy overall.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0017-811X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2161-976X</identifier><identifier>CODEN: HALRAF</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: The Harvard Law Review Association</publisher><subject>Advisors ; Advisory committees ; Approval ; Attorneys ; Auctions ; Business management ; Business valuation ; Buyouts ; Capital formation ; Chief executive officers ; Classification ; COMPANIES ; Corporation law ; Courts ; Deals (Business) ; Delaware ; Delaware. Supreme Court ; EQUITY ; Fair value ; Financial management ; Incentives ; MANAGEMENT ; Management buyout ; Management buyouts ; Market prices ; Methods ; Prices ; Proxy statements ; Shareholders ; SHARES AND SHAREHOLDERS ; Social classes ; Specialized committees ; State courts ; Stockholders ; Taxation ; United States ; Valuation methods ; Value appraisal</subject><ispartof>Harvard law review, 2016-12, Vol.130 (2), p.590-658</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Harvard Law Review Association</rights><rights>Copyright Harvard Law Review Association Dec 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44072387$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44072387$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27845,57996,58229</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Subramanian, Guhan</creatorcontrib><title>DEAL PROCESS DESIGN IN MANAGEMENT BUYOUTS</title><title>Harvard law review</title><description>Management buyouts (MBOs) are an economically and legally significant class of transaction: not only do they account for more than $10 billion in deal volume per year, on average, but they also play an important role in defining the relationship between inside and outside shareholders in every public company. Delaware courts and lawyers in transactional practice rely heavily on "market-check" processes to ensure that exiting shareholders receive fair value in MBOs. This Article identifies four factors that create an unlevel playing field in that market check: information asymmetries, valuable management, management financial incentives to discourage overbids, and the "ticking-clock" problem. This taxonomy of four factors allows special committees and their advisors to assess the degree to which the playing field is level in an MBO, and (by extension) the extent to which a market canvass can provide a meaningful check on the buyout price. This Article then identifies more potent deal process tools that special committees can use to level the playing field: for example, contractual commitments from management that allow the board to run the process; pre-signingpre-signing rather than post-signing market checks; information rights rather than match rights; ex ante inducement fees; and approval from a majority of the disinterested shares. This Article also identifies ways that the Delaware courts can encourage the use of these more potent devices when appropriate: through the threat of entire fairness review, the application of Revlon duties, and the weight given to the deal price in appraisal proceedings. The result would be improved deal process design in MBOs and improved capital formation in the economy overall.</description><subject>Advisors</subject><subject>Advisory committees</subject><subject>Approval</subject><subject>Attorneys</subject><subject>Auctions</subject><subject>Business management</subject><subject>Business valuation</subject><subject>Buyouts</subject><subject>Capital formation</subject><subject>Chief executive officers</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>COMPANIES</subject><subject>Corporation law</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Deals (Business)</subject><subject>Delaware</subject><subject>Delaware. Supreme Court</subject><subject>EQUITY</subject><subject>Fair value</subject><subject>Financial management</subject><subject>Incentives</subject><subject>MANAGEMENT</subject><subject>Management buyout</subject><subject>Management buyouts</subject><subject>Market prices</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Prices</subject><subject>Proxy statements</subject><subject>Shareholders</subject><subject>SHARES AND SHAREHOLDERS</subject><subject>Social classes</subject><subject>Specialized committees</subject><subject>State courts</subject><subject>Stockholders</subject><subject>Taxation</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Valuation methods</subject><subject>Value appraisal</subject><issn>0017-811X</issn><issn>2161-976X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>N95</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkdFq2zAUhs1oYVm7RxgYetPCXCRLluRLL_USQ5qMJYHuSsiy7Cg4dibJsL591aZjy5abSiCB9P3fOXDeBaMYEhillDycBSMAII0YhA_vgw_WbgEABFE8Cm7u8mwWfvu-GOfLZXiXL4vJPCzm4X02zyb5fT5fhV_WPxbr1fIyOK9Fa9XH1_siWH_NV-NpNFtMinE2ixpMmYsqjElSlzWVGFS0LAFIoa8t_WJplZQySQgSKZFJmSggEyRFDahihEggEkzQRXB98O5N_3NQ1vGdtlK1rehUP1gOWQoxhjFlHr36B932g-l8d55iALEUx_AP1YhWcd3VvTNCPkt5hmmMaAzi57LRCapRnTKi7TtVa_98xN-e4P2u1E7Lk4Gbo4BnnPrlGjFYy4tpccx-_ostB6s7Zf1hdbNx9hA5wmcH3Oy046LRdu_4xrm95ZVw4qW7l6_eNLzqNYeAIwTJbzQG0A8JYD-nlGKvm_6vs0oYuXm76tNBtbWuN3xv9E6YR44x8M0zip4AStDL3g</recordid><startdate>20161201</startdate><enddate>20161201</enddate><creator>Subramanian, Guhan</creator><general>The Harvard Law Review Association</general><general>Harvard Law Review Association</general><scope>N95</scope><scope>XI7</scope><scope>IHI</scope><scope>ILT</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161201</creationdate><title>DEAL PROCESS DESIGN IN MANAGEMENT BUYOUTS</title><author>Subramanian, Guhan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g478t-d4465fbf7c40d7bb0091017cccc89d5bc5563a96c5b5e0c53caf07e866c0a5463</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Advisors</topic><topic>Advisory committees</topic><topic>Approval</topic><topic>Attorneys</topic><topic>Auctions</topic><topic>Business management</topic><topic>Business valuation</topic><topic>Buyouts</topic><topic>Capital formation</topic><topic>Chief executive officers</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>COMPANIES</topic><topic>Corporation law</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Deals (Business)</topic><topic>Delaware</topic><topic>Delaware. Supreme Court</topic><topic>EQUITY</topic><topic>Fair value</topic><topic>Financial management</topic><topic>Incentives</topic><topic>MANAGEMENT</topic><topic>Management buyout</topic><topic>Management buyouts</topic><topic>Market prices</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Prices</topic><topic>Proxy statements</topic><topic>Shareholders</topic><topic>SHARES AND SHAREHOLDERS</topic><topic>Social classes</topic><topic>Specialized committees</topic><topic>State courts</topic><topic>Stockholders</topic><topic>Taxation</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Valuation methods</topic><topic>Value appraisal</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Subramanian, Guhan</creatorcontrib><collection>Gale Business: Insights</collection><collection>Business Insights: Essentials</collection><collection>Gale In Context: U.S. History</collection><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Harvard law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Subramanian, Guhan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>DEAL PROCESS DESIGN IN MANAGEMENT BUYOUTS</atitle><jtitle>Harvard law review</jtitle><date>2016-12-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>130</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>590</spage><epage>658</epage><pages>590-658</pages><issn>0017-811X</issn><eissn>2161-976X</eissn><coden>HALRAF</coden><abstract>Management buyouts (MBOs) are an economically and legally significant class of transaction: not only do they account for more than $10 billion in deal volume per year, on average, but they also play an important role in defining the relationship between inside and outside shareholders in every public company. Delaware courts and lawyers in transactional practice rely heavily on "market-check" processes to ensure that exiting shareholders receive fair value in MBOs. This Article identifies four factors that create an unlevel playing field in that market check: information asymmetries, valuable management, management financial incentives to discourage overbids, and the "ticking-clock" problem. This taxonomy of four factors allows special committees and their advisors to assess the degree to which the playing field is level in an MBO, and (by extension) the extent to which a market canvass can provide a meaningful check on the buyout price. This Article then identifies more potent deal process tools that special committees can use to level the playing field: for example, contractual commitments from management that allow the board to run the process; pre-signingpre-signing rather than post-signing market checks; information rights rather than match rights; ex ante inducement fees; and approval from a majority of the disinterested shares. This Article also identifies ways that the Delaware courts can encourage the use of these more potent devices when appropriate: through the threat of entire fairness review, the application of Revlon duties, and the weight given to the deal price in appraisal proceedings. The result would be improved deal process design in MBOs and improved capital formation in the economy overall.</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>The Harvard Law Review Association</pub><tpages>69</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0017-811X
ispartof Harvard law review, 2016-12, Vol.130 (2), p.590-658
issn 0017-811X
2161-976X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1880389421
source PAIS Index; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Business Source Complete; Jstor Complete Legacy; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Advisors
Advisory committees
Approval
Attorneys
Auctions
Business management
Business valuation
Buyouts
Capital formation
Chief executive officers
Classification
COMPANIES
Corporation law
Courts
Deals (Business)
Delaware
Delaware. Supreme Court
EQUITY
Fair value
Financial management
Incentives
MANAGEMENT
Management buyout
Management buyouts
Market prices
Methods
Prices
Proxy statements
Shareholders
SHARES AND SHAREHOLDERS
Social classes
Specialized committees
State courts
Stockholders
Taxation
United States
Valuation methods
Value appraisal
title DEAL PROCESS DESIGN IN MANAGEMENT BUYOUTS
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T19%3A41%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=DEAL%20PROCESS%20DESIGN%20IN%20MANAGEMENT%20BUYOUTS&rft.jtitle=Harvard%20law%20review&rft.au=Subramanian,%20Guhan&rft.date=2016-12-01&rft.volume=130&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=590&rft.epage=658&rft.pages=590-658&rft.issn=0017-811X&rft.eissn=2161-976X&rft.coden=HALRAF&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA472372026%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1880389421&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A472372026&rft_informt_id=10.3316/agispt.20191004017974&rft_jstor_id=44072387&rfr_iscdi=true