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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Harvard law review 2016-12, Vol.130 (2), p.590-658 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
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 |