Reconciling the "Bittersweet Chemistry" between Technology and Corporate Takeovers through Reinforcing National Security Interests in Merger Control

This article argues that company takeover regulation regimes must carefully balance two opposing notions. On the one hand, the regime must be designed to enable or facilitate the initiation and successful implementation of takeovers and mergers in the interests of economic growth and technological advancement. On the other hand, such a regulatory framework ought to be sensitive to the ever-increasing need to protect national security interests, especially from veiled threats. These threats include cybercrimes, private data hacking and espionage, which are endemic to takeovers contemplated by foreign persons that possess technological sophistication and are leaders in the rapidly unfolding Fourth Industrial Revolution. Recently some jurisdictions, such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom, have been active in reforming their investment laws to particularly strengthen the protection of national security interests. Similarly, in South Africa the debut introduction of section 18A of the Competition Amendment Act 18 of 2018 has enabled the addition of a concurrent but parallel standard to the pre-existing merger control criteria prescribed under section 12A of the Competition Act 89 of 1998. This article evaluates the efficacy of South Africa's framework for national security interests' protection in the context of merger control using its US and UK counterparts as comparators. Ultimately, the article proposes reforming the existing statutory and institutional framework to effectively accommodate national security interests in South African merger control.

Financial distress, corporate takeovers and the distress anomaly

PurposeThis paper examines the relation between takeover likelihood and the documented underperformance of distressed company stocks while exploring two competing hypotheses. The failure risk explanation predicts lower returns to distressed firms with high probability of being acquired because the acquisition reduces risk and investors' required return. Conversely, the agency conflicts explanation predicts lower returns when acquisition is unlikely.Design/methodology/approachThe likelihood of receiving a takeover bid is estimated, and portfolio tests explore the underperformance of distressed company stocks relative to non-distressed stocks across varying levels of takeover likelihood. Predictive regressions subsequently examine the relation between distress, takeover exposure and future firm operating performance including how the relation is affected by state anti-takeover laws.FindingsDistressed stocks underperform non-distressed company stocks by economically and statistically significant margins when takeover likelihood is low, yet there is no evidence of underperformance among distressed stocks with moderate or high takeover exposure. Consistent with agency conflicts playing a key role, distressed firms that are disciplined by takeover threats invest more, use more leverage and experience higher future profitability. State-level anti-takeover legislation limits this disciplinary effect, however.Originality/valueThe results show that the well-documented distress anomaly is driven by a subset of distressed firms whose managers face limited pressure from the external takeover market. The evidence casts doubt on the failure risk explanation and suggests that agency conflicts play a key role.

Corporate Takeovers and Non-Financial Stakeholders

A large body of work has examined the impact of corporate takeovers on the financial stakeholders (shareholders and bondholders) of the merging firms. Since the late 2000s, empirical research has increasingly highlighted the crucial role played by the non-financial stakeholders (labor, suppliers, customers, government, and communities) in these transactions. It is, therefore, important to understand the interplay between corporate takeovers and the non-financial stakeholders of the firm. Financial economists have long viewed the firm as a nexus of contracts between various stakeholders connected to the firm. Corporate takeovers not only play an important role in redefining the broad boundaries of the firm but also result in major changes to corporate ownership and structure. In the process, takeovers can significantly alter the contractual relationships with non-financial stakeholders. Because the firm’s relationships with these stakeholders are governed by implicit and explicit contracts, circumstances can arise that allow acquiring firms to fully or partially abrogate these contracts and extract rents from non-financial stakeholders after deal completion. In contrast, non-financial stakeholders can also potentially benefit from a takeover if they get to share in any efficiency gains that are generated in the deal. Given this framework, the ex-ante importance of these contractual relationships can have a bearing on the efficacy of takeovers. The ability to alter contractual relationships ex post can affect the propensity of a takeover and merging firms’ shareholders and, in turn, impact non-financial stakeholders. Non-financial stakeholders will be more vested in post-takeover success if they can trust the acquiring firm to not take actions that are detrimental to them. The big picture that emerges from the surveyed literature is that non-financial stakeholder considerations affect takeover decisions and post-takeover outcomes. Moreover, takeovers also have an impact on non-financial stakeholders. The directions of all these effects, however, depend on the economic environment in which the merging firms operate.

Strategic Decisions in Takeover Auctions: Recent Developments

We review recent research into how firms navigate four complex decisions in corporate takeovers: ( a) deal initiation, ( b) pre-offer toehold acquisition, ( c) the initial (public) offer price, and ( d) the payment method. We focus the evidence on public targets and the theory on first-price or English (ascending-price) auctions with two competing bidders and a single (pivotal) seller. The evidence shows that nearly half of bids are initiated by the target (not a bidder). Notwithstanding the large offer premiums, only a small fraction of bidders acquire a target toehold prior to bidding. The first bid rarely attracts rival bidders, suggesting effective competition deterrence. Bid jumps are high, as predicted when bidding costs are large. Pre-bid stock price run-ups reflect rational market deal anticipation and are understood as such by the deal negotiators. Bidders select stock payment when concerned with adverse selection on the target side of the deal.