通过提供权利控制征用

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS American Business Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-08-02 DOI:10.1111/ablj.12232
Leeor Ofer
{"title":"通过提供权利控制征用","authors":"Leeor Ofer","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Rights offers are a relatively common capital-raising method. In a rights offer, the company's existing shareholders are given the opportunity to purchase newly-issued shares in proportion to the amount of shares they already own for a specific subscription price per share. Because all shareholders can participate in the issuance under the same terms, rights offers are often regarded as fair to all shareholders. However, this article demonstrates that rights offers do not always place shareholders on equal footing. In particular, this article shows that dominant, non-controlling shareholders (“insiders”) can utilize a rights offer to expropriate control. By setting a deliberately high subscription price, insiders can deter other shareholders from buying into the offer. Insiders can then purchase a disproportionate amount of shares via the rights offer, thereby securing absolute control. Once in control, insiders will be in a position to extract value from the firm, and will be immune to future control challenges. These expected benefits of control make the high subscription price worth paying from insiders' perspective, so that the rights offer is effectively underpriced for insiders but overpriced for other shareholders. When a rights offer acts as a change-of-control tool, it should be governed by Delaware takeover law. Courts should closely scrutinize such issuances, and require boards to maximize the premium insiders pay for control. This article further suggests that stock exchanges adopt a mandatory price-adjusting mechanism for rights offers, which will guarantee that the subscription price is lower than or equal to the underlying share's trading price.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"60 3","pages":"651-696"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Control Expropriation Via Rights Offers\",\"authors\":\"Leeor Ofer\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ablj.12232\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Rights offers are a relatively common capital-raising method. In a rights offer, the company's existing shareholders are given the opportunity to purchase newly-issued shares in proportion to the amount of shares they already own for a specific subscription price per share. Because all shareholders can participate in the issuance under the same terms, rights offers are often regarded as fair to all shareholders. However, this article demonstrates that rights offers do not always place shareholders on equal footing. In particular, this article shows that dominant, non-controlling shareholders (“insiders”) can utilize a rights offer to expropriate control. By setting a deliberately high subscription price, insiders can deter other shareholders from buying into the offer. Insiders can then purchase a disproportionate amount of shares via the rights offer, thereby securing absolute control. Once in control, insiders will be in a position to extract value from the firm, and will be immune to future control challenges. These expected benefits of control make the high subscription price worth paying from insiders' perspective, so that the rights offer is effectively underpriced for insiders but overpriced for other shareholders. When a rights offer acts as a change-of-control tool, it should be governed by Delaware takeover law. Courts should closely scrutinize such issuances, and require boards to maximize the premium insiders pay for control. This article further suggests that stock exchanges adopt a mandatory price-adjusting mechanism for rights offers, which will guarantee that the subscription price is lower than or equal to the underlying share's trading price.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"60 3\",\"pages\":\"651-696\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12232\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12232","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

配股是一种相对常见的融资方式。在配股中,公司的现有股东有机会以特定的每股认购价格,按照他们已经拥有的股票数量的比例购买新发行的股票。由于所有股东都可以在相同的条款下参与发行,因此配股通常被认为对所有股东都是公平的。然而,本文表明,配股并不总是将股东置于平等地位。特别是,本文表明,占主导地位的非控股股东(“内部人”)可以利用配股来征收控制权。通过故意设定较高的认购价格,内部人士可以阻止其他股东买入。然后,内部人士可以通过配股购买不成比例的股份,从而获得绝对控制权。一旦掌握了控制权,内部人士就能从公司获取价值,而且不会受到未来控制权挑战的影响。这些预期的控制权利益使得高认购价格从内部人士的角度来看是值得支付的,因此配股对内部人士来说实际上是定价过低,而对其他股东来说则是定价过高。当配股作为控制权变更工具时,应受特拉华州收购法的管辖。法院应密切审查此类发行,并要求董事会最大限度地提高内部人士为获得控制权而支付的溢价。本文进一步建议证券交易所采用强制性配股价格调整机制,以保证认购价格低于或等于标的股票的交易价格。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Control Expropriation Via Rights Offers

Rights offers are a relatively common capital-raising method. In a rights offer, the company's existing shareholders are given the opportunity to purchase newly-issued shares in proportion to the amount of shares they already own for a specific subscription price per share. Because all shareholders can participate in the issuance under the same terms, rights offers are often regarded as fair to all shareholders. However, this article demonstrates that rights offers do not always place shareholders on equal footing. In particular, this article shows that dominant, non-controlling shareholders (“insiders”) can utilize a rights offer to expropriate control. By setting a deliberately high subscription price, insiders can deter other shareholders from buying into the offer. Insiders can then purchase a disproportionate amount of shares via the rights offer, thereby securing absolute control. Once in control, insiders will be in a position to extract value from the firm, and will be immune to future control challenges. These expected benefits of control make the high subscription price worth paying from insiders' perspective, so that the rights offer is effectively underpriced for insiders but overpriced for other shareholders. When a rights offer acts as a change-of-control tool, it should be governed by Delaware takeover law. Courts should closely scrutinize such issuances, and require boards to maximize the premium insiders pay for control. This article further suggests that stock exchanges adopt a mandatory price-adjusting mechanism for rights offers, which will guarantee that the subscription price is lower than or equal to the underlying share's trading price.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Rebooting the Community Reinvestment Act High-status versus low-status stakeholders Innovation stakeholders: Developing a sustainable paradigm to integrate intellectual property and corporate social responsibility Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1