Person:

Subramanian, Guhan

We use the Business Roundtable’s challenge to the SEC’s 2010 proxy access rule as a natural experiment to measure the value of shareholder proxy access. We find that firms that would have been most vulnerable to proxy access, as measured by institutional ownership and activist institutional ownership in particular, lost value on October 4, 2010, when the SEC unexpectedly announced that it would delay implementation of the Rule in response to the Business Roundtable challenge. We also examine intra-day returns and find that the value loss occurred just after the SEC’s announcement on October 4. We find similar results on July 22, 2011, when the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the Business Roundtable. These findings are consistent with the view that financial markets placed a positive value on shareholder access, as implemented in the SEC’s 2010 Rule.

Historically, Delaware corporate law provided different standards of judicial review for buyouts by controlling shareholders (also known as “freezeouts”). The standards were based on what transactional form was used: deferential business judgment review for freezeouts executed as tender offers and stringent “entire fairness” review for transactions structured as mergers. Subramanian (2005), Subramanian (2007), and Restrepo (2013) provide doctrinal and empirical evidence that (1) transactional planners responded to these differences in standards of judicial review; (2) these differences in judicial scrutiny created differences in outcomes for the minority shareholders; and (3) differences in outcomes created a social welfare loss, not just a wealth transfer from minority shareholders to the controlling shareholder. Over the past decade, in a series of important decisions, Delaware law has migrated toward a unified approach to freezeouts regardless of transactional form. In this Article we present empirical evidence on all freezeouts of Delaware targets during this period of doctrinal evolution. In general, we find that deal outcomes converged after the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision in In re Cox Communications, Inc. Shareholders Litigation. Our findings suggest that: (1) transactional planners seem to respond to even dicta in the Delaware case law; and (2) the social welfare loss identified in Subramanian (2005) seems no longer to be present. This result in turn suggests that the Delaware Supreme Court seems to have adopted the correct policy by endorsing the unified approach for merger freezeouts in Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp., and moreover, that the court should also explicitly endorse this approach  in the context of tender offer freezeouts when presented with such facts.

The article presents information on corporate methods of preventing hostile takeovers by corporate raiders, such as the poison pill strategy. It is noted that some of these techniques have become less popular and effective. An argument is presented that Section 203 of the corporate code of Delaware, which has been in force since 1988, could be overturned, which would further reduce antitakeover protections for the majority of U.S. firms.

In an Article published in the May 2010 issue of the Business Lawyer, we examined Delaware doctrine and presented new evidence to conclude that the empirical claim that the federal courts relied upon to uphold Delaware’s antitakeover statute against Supremacy Clause challenges is no longer valid, and that the constitutionality of Section 203 is therefore "up for grabs." In this brief Reply, we respond to five commentaries on our Article, written by prominent corporate law practitioners and academics. Among other points, we re-examine the sample that supported the constitutionality of Section 203 (n=17) to find that not a single one of these bids actually gave bidders a "meaningful opportunity for success" on a hostile basis, as the federal courts held that the Supremacy Clause requires. Taken together, these further findings confirm our view that Section 203 is vulnerable to constitutional attack.

What's the best way to buy or sell an asset? Should you hold an auction and accept the most attractive offer? Or should you identify the most likely prospects and negotiate with them privately? Auctions became increasingly popular after the internet opened wide the universe of potential bidders. The wrinkle is, auctions often set up win-lose relationships between buyers and sellers, says Subramanian, a professor at Harvard's schools of business and law. In many situations, negotiations lead to better results. Before you decide on a process, carefully consider the nature of the buyers, the characteristics of the asset in question, and your own priorities. If you can get enough of the right buyers to participate, an auction generally makes sense -- unless you expect a wide range of valuations. In that case, an auction could leave a lot of money on the table -- as it did in the sale of Cable & Wireless America. CWA's assets were uniquely strategic to the winner, but because it had to beat the second-highest bidder by only a little bit, the company got them at a price far below the value the deal actually generated. Can you write exact specifications for an asset? Then you probably won't go wrong with an auction. But specification can discourage creative collaboration between buyer and seller. If that will add value to your deal, or if a relationship is important, pursue a negotiation. Finally, examine your priorities. When discretion is critical, a negotiation will work better, but when you need a transparent, speedy process, an auction is the more sensible choice. INSET: A Tale of Two TARP Auctions.

Commentators have long debated whether competition among states for corporate charters represents a race to the top or a race to the bottom. Race-to-the-top advocates have recently gained ground in this debate on the basis of the general migration to Delaware in the 1990s and empirical evidence suggesting that Delaware incorporation increases shareholder wealth. This article uses second-generation state antitakeover statutes to shed additional light on this debate. I use a new database of reincorporations from the 1990s to show that managers generally migrate to (and fail to migrate away from) typical antitakeover statutes Given the robust econometric evidence that these statutes increase managerial agency costs and reduce shareholder wealth, my results generally support the race-to-the-bottom view. However, I also find that managers migrate away from the more severe antitakeover statutes in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. This finding introduces the possibility for "overreaching" in the corporate charter marketplace and suggests important limits on the race to the bottom. The results have implications for recent developments in corporate charter competition in both the United States and the European Union.

In recent work, we presented evidence indicating that staggered boards have adverse effects on target shareholders. John Wilcox, the Vice-Chair of Georgeson, recently published a critique of our work, urging shareholders to support staggered boards. We respond in this article to Wilcox's critique and explain why it does not weaken in any way our analysis of staggered boards.

The study criticized by Wilcox, "The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy," 54 Stanford Law Review 887-951 (2002), is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=304388. In a separate reply, "The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Further Findings and a Reply to Symposium Participants," 55 Stanford Law Review 885-917 (2002), which is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=360840, we respond to several other responses to our original study and present additional evidence that confirms its conclusions.

This paper develops and defends our earlier analysis of the powerful antitakeover force of staggered boards. We reply to five responses to our work, by Stephen Bainbridge, Mark Gordon, Patrick McGurn, Leo Strine, and Lynn Stout, which are to be published in a Stanford Law Review Symposium. We present new empirical evidence that extends our earlier findings, confirms our conclusions, and demonstrates that the alternative theories put forward by some commentators do not adequately explain the evidence. Among other things, we find that having a majority of independent directors does not address the concern that defensive tactics might be abused. We also find that effective staggered boards do not appear to have a significant beneficial effect on premia in negotiated transactions. Finally, we show that, unlike our approach, the approach that our critics advocate for Delaware takeover jurisprudence to follow is both inconsistent with its established principles and takes an extreme position in the overall debate on takeover defenses. Our analysis and new findings further strengthen the case for limiting the ability of incumbents armed with a staggered board to continue saying no after losing an election conducted over an acquisition offer.

This case describes Oracle's hostile takeover bid to acquire PeopleSoft, which began with an unsolicited cash tender offer at $16.00 per share in June 2003 and ended with a negotiated deal at $26.50 per share in December 2004. Novel questions of corporate law are raised by the prolonged use of a poison pill against a structurally non-coercive, all-cash, fully-financed offer; as well as PeopleSoft's unprecedented Customer Assurance Program (CAP), which promised PeopleSoft customers between two and five times their money back if Oracle acquired PeopleSoft and then reduced support for PeopleSoft products. This case study will be published as part of a dealmaking symposium in the Harvard Negotiation Law Review, followed by commentaries from practitioners involved in the deal, judges, and academics.

Freezeout transactions, in which a controlling shareholder buys out the minority shareholders, have occurred more frequently since the stock market downturn of 2000 and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. While freezeouts were historically executed as statutory mergers, recent Delaware case law facilitates a new mechanism--freezeout via tender offer--by eliminating entire fairness review for these transactions. This Article identifies two social welfare costs of the current doctrinal regime. First, the tender-offer-freezeout mechanism facilitates some inefficient (value-destroying) transactions by allowing the controller to exploit asymmetric information against the minority. Second, the merger-freezeout mechanism deters some efficient (value-increasing) transactions because of the special committee's veto power against the deal. These negative wealth effects are unlikely to be resolved through private contracting between the controller and the minority in the corporate charter. Rather than advocating patchwork reforms to correct these problems, this Article proposes a return to first principles of corporate law in the freezeout context. The result of this re-grounding would be a convergence in judicial standards of review for freezeouts and the elimination of the efficiency loss that is inherent in the existing doctrine.