坪沼

Similar documents
株式保有構成と企業価値 ─コーポレート・ガバナンスに関する一考察─

濱田弘潤 : 多角化企業の利潤分析 77 多角化企業の利潤分析 多角化ディスカウントの寡占理論による説明 * 濱田弘潤 (diversification discount) Keywords: JEL classifications: D43, L13, L22, G

M&A の経済分析:M&A はなぜ増加したのか

Ł\”ƒ-2005

第90回日本感染症学会学術講演会抄録(I)


バーリ&ミーンズの株式会社論

23_02.dvi


プログラム

COE-RES Discussion Paper Series Center of Excellence Project The Normative Evaluation and Social Choice of Contemporary Economic Systems Graduate Scho

bottleneckjapanese.dvi

季刊 企業と法創造 第1巻第4号(通巻第4号)


tnbp59-21_Web:P2/ky132379509610002944


日本内科学会雑誌第97巻第7号

日本内科学会雑誌第98巻第4号

nsg04-28/ky208684356100043077

抄録/抄録1    (1)V

研修コーナー

パーキンソン病治療ガイドライン2002

わが国企業による資金調達方法の選択問題

CVMに基づくNi-Al合金の

本文/目次(裏白)

野村資本市場研究所|アジアの金融競争力(PDF)

組織の経済学:企業の境界

I- Fama-French 3, Idiosyncratic (I- ) I- ( ) 1 I- I- I- 1 I- I- Jensen Fama-French 3 SMB-FL, HML-FL I- Fama-French 3 I- Fama-MacBeth Fama-MacBeth I- S

財政赤字の経済分析:中長期的視点からの考察

headquarter Gertner et al. winner-picking Wal-Mart s

時間割引:双曲割引と弱加法性

* *2 Russell et al. (2015) 2


43 2 PD DR Sommar and Shahnazarianka [19] Simons and Rolwes [17] GDP Figlewski, Frydman and Liang [7] GDP Bonfim [2] 3 Bhattacharjee et al. [1] 2002 [

130 Oct Radial Basis Function RBF Efficient Market Hypothesis Fama ) 4) 1 Fig. 1 Utility function. 2 Fig. 2 Value function. (1) (2)

導入


戦間期日本企業の資金調達、資本コスト、資本構成:最適資本構成理論からみた1930年代における企業財務

アジアの資本移動の変化に関するクラスター分析 アジア域内の証券投資活性化に向けて

1 CAPM: I-,,, I- ( ) 1 I- I- I- ( CAPM) I- CAPM I- 1 I- Jensen Fama-French 3 I- Fama-French 3 I- Fama-MacBeth I- SMB-FL, HML-FL Fama-MacBeth 1 Fama-Fr

BB 報告書完成版_修正版) doc

非上場企業におけるコーポレート・ガバナンス

The first chapter, Creation of Corporate Value by M&A, includes examples of completed Japanese M&A (Merger and Acquisition) cases and some emerging M&

untitled

(1) (Karlan, 2004) (1) (1973) (1978) (1991) (1991) 1

76 1 2

日本内科学会雑誌第102巻第4号

PFI

Title 最適年金の理論 Author(s) 藤井, 隆雄 ; 林, 史明 ; 入谷, 純 ; 小黒, 一正 Citation Issue Date Type Technical Report Text Version publisher URL

Lecture 12. Properties of Expanders

1 Flores, D. (009) All you can drink: should we worry about quality? Journal of Regulatory Economics 35(1), Saggi, K., and Vettas, N. (00) On in

shuron.dvi

第86回日本感染症学会総会学術集会後抄録(I)

New Public Management NPM Walsh Leibenstein, H. X Leibenstein1966 Leibenstein1969 X X X X Blois ue

O1-1 O1-2 O1-3 O1-4 O1-5 O1-6


自殺の経済社会的要因に関する調査研究報告書

L Y L( ) Y0.15Y 0.03L 0.01L 6% L=(10.15)Y 108.5Y 6%1 Y y p L ( 19 ) [1990] [1988] 1

Jorgenson F, L : L: Inada lim F =, lim F L = k L lim F =, lim F L = 2 L F >, F L > 3 F <, F LL < 4 λ >, λf, L = F λ, λl 5 Y = Const a L a < α < CES? C

III III 2010 PART I 1 Definition 1.1 (, σ-),,,, Borel( ),, (σ-) (M, F, µ), (R, B(R)), (C, B(C)) Borel Definition 1.2 (µ-a.e.), (in µ), (in L 1 (µ)). T

プログラム

放射線専門医認定試験(2009・20回)/HOHS‐05(基礎二次)

_03.indd

_01野口.indd

2 / 24


original: 2011/11/5 revised: 2012/10/30, 2013/12/ : 2 V i V t2 V o V L V H V i V i V t1 V o V H V L V t1 V t2 1 Q 1 1 Q


Milnor 1 ( ), IX,. [KN].,. 2 : (1),. (2). 1 ; 1950, Milnor[M1, M2]. Milnor,,. ([Hil, HM, IO, St] ).,.,,, ( 2 5 )., Milnor ( 4.1)..,,., [CEGS],. Ω m, P

Winter 図 1 図 OECD OECD OECD OECD 2003

橡motonishi.PDF

2016.

第121回関東連合産科婦人科学会総会・学術集会 プログラム・抄録

autocorrelataion cross-autocorrelataion Lo/MacKinlay [1988, 1990] (A)

心理学部紀要 8号☆/5.東

I: 2 : 3 +



1 th 1 th Dec M&A 2 M&A VS M&A

n 2 + π2 6 x [10 n x] x = lim n 10 n n 10 k x 1.1. a 1, a 2,, a n, (a n ) n=1 {a n } n=1 1.2 ( ). {a n } n=1 Q ε > 0 N N m, n N a m


koji07-01.dvi

inkiso.dvi

Akito Tsuboi June 22, T ϕ T M M ϕ M M ϕ T ϕ 2 Definition 1 X, Y, Z,... 1

1. 2. (Rowthorn, 2014) / 39 1

Abstract Gale-Shapley 2 (1) 2 (2) (1)

65-5 足代訓史.pwd

untitled

cover.ai

p *2 DSGEDynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium New Keynesian *2 2

MRI | 所報 | 分権経営の進展下におけるグループ・マネジメント

- 2 -


PR映画-1

II III I ~ 2 ~

中堅中小企業向け秘密保持マニュアル



1 (1) (2)

2 3

Transcription:

2003 2006 M&A 2006 5 2007 5 TOB TOB TOB TOB 2006 12 TOB Grossman-Hart 1980 TOB

free-rider TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB free-rider Grossman-Hart 1980 dilution TOB pressure-to-tender Burkart-Gromb-Panunzi 1998 TOB freezeout pressure-to-tender Amihud-Kahan-Sundaram 2004 free-rider pressure-to-tender Bebchuk-Hart 2001 2 proxy fights TOB TOB free-rider

TOB Bagnoli-Lipman 1988 Holmstrom-Nalebuff 1993 freerider Shleifer-Vishny 1986 Hirshleiher-Titman 1988 2 3 free-rider 4 Bagnoli-Lipman 1988 Holmstrom-Nalebuff 1993 5 TOB Grossman-Hart 1980 Burkart-Gromb-Panunzi 1998 6 Amihud-Kahan-Sundaram 2004 freezeout 7 Bebchuk-Hart 2002 TOB TOB 8 I 0 public firm 0 TOB I I 0 1 1 I 2 1 3 I

TOB TOB conditional TOB TOB restricted TOB any and all TOB 3 2 1 0 TOB I 0 TOB 2 0 0 I I I 3 V I Bebchuk-Hart 2001 I B I Y I V I = Y I + B I I V I B I Y I = V I B I Y I 0 I I 1 R I R 3 V R R B R Y R V R = Y R + B R I N 1 Y I /N = y I B I /N = b I V I /N = v I Y R /N = y R B R /N = b R V R /N = v R

TOB I I R 3 TOB I I R (i) V R V I C T 0 (ii) V R Y I C T 0 (iii) Y R Y I C T 0 (i) (iii) TOB (ii) (i) V I Y I I Bebchuk-Hart 2001 I B I I 0 TOB B I Y I (i) (ii) 0 H h H n h N = n h h H K TOB K TOB K/N = ω TOB K TOB TOB

h 0 < n h < N K TOB TOB C T TOB q Q = Nq Y I Y R h t h h t h m h 0 m h n h f h (m h ) t h h h m h m h n h t h = m h t = (t h ) h H h t h = (t j ) j H h T = t h, T h = t j (1) h H j H h T T h h Pr[success t] t = (t h ) h H TOB T K Pr[success t h, t h = m h ] h t h = (t j ) j H h h m h S h (q, t) S h (q, t h, t h ) S R (q, t) TOB T h K m h q t = (t h ) h H h q h t h = (t j ) j H h h t h h q t = (t h ) h H Pr[success t] Pr[success t h, t h = m h ] 0 1

Pr[success t] Pr[success t h, t h = m h ] (2) m h h t pivotal (2) t = (t h ) h H h m h TOB h TOB t m h = 0 TOB h t h t h free-rider TOB TOB 1 TOB TOB q y I y R y I h h TOB q < y R 3.1 h q y R TOB TOB q y R (3) free-rider

TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB Grossman-Hart 1980 free-rider TOB TOB q < y R γ 0 < γ < 1 q < y R γ q + (1 γ) y R < y R TOB TOB TOB q h TOB 1 TOB TOB q q y R y I 1 TOB q < y R TOB 1 TOB 1 TOB y I < q TOB 1 TOB Grossman-Hart 1980 TOB (3.2-1) q < y R 1 TOB (3.2-2) y I < q 1 TOB

TOB 1 0 y I < q < y R TOB q y R TOB Bagnoli-Lipman 1988 Holmstrom-Nalebuff 1993 any and all TOB R q y R y I t * = (m * h ) h H m * h = K, m * h n, h H (4) h H h (4) TOB R n h m h 1 y R (4) q y R > q > y I (4) t * m * h m * h h TOB I 1 y I q (4) S h (q, t * ) > S h (q, t h *, m h ) for any m h m h * (5) Bagnoli-Lipman 1988, p.94, Example 1 TOB y R > q > y I K TOB 1 h m h

m * h = K, m * h n, h H h H t * = (m * h ) h H S R (t * ) = K(y R q) + B R C T (6) q y I S R (t * ) = K(y R y I ) + B R C T = (K/N) (Y R Y I ) + B R C T (7) 4.1 S R (t * ) = (K/N) (Y R Y I ) + B R C T 0 TOB K < N 2.1 y R > q > y I q 1 #H N = #H { f 0, with probability 1 f t h =, h H (8) 1, with probability f 1 TOB f TOB 1 f t f = (t h f )h H Pr[success t f ] = N j=k ( ) N f j (1 f) N j (9) J N 1 ( ) Pr[success t h f N 1, t h = 0] = f j (1 f) N 1 j (10) J j=k K 1 ( ) (1 Pr[success t h f N 1, t h = 0]) = f j (1 f) N 1 j (11) J j=0

(9) t f TOB (10) (11) h (8) h TOB TOB h (8) TOB q TOB q = (1 Pr[success t h f, t h = 0]) y I + Pr[success t h f, t h = 0] y R (12) TOB TOB (12) (10) (11) f = 0 y I f = 1 y R y R > q > y I q (12) f (12) f TOB Y R Y I TOB Pr[success t f ] Pr[success t f ](Y R Y I ) + Y I (13) (12) TOB q = Pr[success t h f, t h = 0](y R y I ) + y I (10) Pr[success t h f, t h = 0] h R S R (q, t f ) = Pr[success t f ](Y R Y I ) + Y I N{Pr[success t h f, t h = 0](y R y I ) + y I } + B R C T = (Pr[success t f ] Pr[success t h f, t h = 0])(Y R Y I ) + B R C T (14) ( ) N 1 = f K (1 f) N K (Y R Y I ) + B R C T K 1 Pr[success q, t f ] Pr[success q, t h f, t h = 0] TOB h TOB h TOB h h h N 1 K 1 h h

Pr[success q, t f ] = Pr[success q, t h f, t h = 0] 0 R q q (12) 1 TOB f q f (12) 1 1 R(14) f (14) f 0 (14) f f K f K = K/N (15) (12) f K/N Bagnoli-Lipman 1988, p.96 Holmstrom-Nalebuff 1993, p.45 TOB 1 K/N R ( )( ) S R (t f N 1 K K ( K ) = 1 K ) N K(YR Y K 1 N N I ) + B R C T (16) K + 1 R f 4.2 f K+1 = (K + 1)/N (17) R ( S R (t f N 1 K+1 ) = K ( N 1 > K ( N 1 = K )( ) K + 1 K+1 ( 1 K ) N K 1(YR Y N N I ) + B R C T )( ) K K+1 ( 1 K ) N K 1(YR Y N N I ) + B R C T (18) )( ) K K ( 1 K ) N K(YR Y N N I ) + B R C T = S R (t f K ) (18) K + 1 R f (17) Holmstrom-Nalebuff 1993, p.46, Proposition 1

R 3 2 4.3 R Holmstrom-Nalebuff 1993 Focal z * max{n h z *, 0} K > max{n h (z * + 1), 0} (19) h H h H z * z z TOB z (z * + 1) H z H z = {h H : n h z * + 1} (20) H z #H z (19) (n h z * ) K > (n h z * 1) (21) h H z h H z H z h (n h z * 1) TOB #H z H z 1 1 1 Holmstrom-Nalebuff 1993, p.51. Proposition 3 TOB y R > q > y I q t h z = 0 for h H z (22)

t h z = m h with probability f z (m h ) m h = 1, 2,..., n h for h H z (23) f z (m h ) = 1 π for m h = n h z * 1 π for m h = n h z * 0 otherwise t z = (t h z ) h H π 0 < π < 1 Holmstrom-Nalebuff 1993 ( n h = a h n for h H N = n h = a h n = a h )n K = kn (24) h H h H h H n n K Holmstrom-Nalebuff 1993, p.51. Proposition 4 Corollary y R > q > y I q n TOB 1 R S R = ω(y R Q) + B R C T (25) Q = Nq 4.5 q y I Q Ny I = Y I R Y R Y I ω (= K/N) S R = ω(y R Y I ) + B R C T TOB R q M M TOB R M = N q y I TOB I

1 y I TOB 1 q TOB 1 y I 1 4.1 N TOB q y I y I y I q > y I M = N q > y I R q > y I Bagnoli-Lipman 1988, p.100, Theorem 2 TOB y R > y I R y I TOB TOB 1 TOB R S R = (Y R Y I ) + B R C T = V R Y I C T TOB 2.1 (ii) TOB I TOB Holmstrom- Nalebuff 1993 TOB credible y R KR

M = K 4 free-rider free-rider free-rider ω 0 < ω < 1 ω = 0.5 TOB ω TOB ω ω ω < 1 1 1 q Q = Nq R α 0 < α < ω TOB Shleifer-Vishny 1986 R Y R ω TOB ω = ω α TOB ω ω < 1 α β 0 β 1 α R S R TOB S R = β(y R Q) C T, if β < ω α (26)

S R = α(y R Y I ) + β(y R Q) + B R C T, if β ω α (27) TOB S R = C T, if β < ω α (28) S R = α(y R Y I ) + β(y R Q) + B R C T, if β ω α (29) TOB S R = C T, if β < ω α (30) S R = α(y R Y I ) + β(y R Q) + B R C T, if ω β ω α (31) S R = α(y R Y I ) + ω(y R Q) + B R C T, if β > ω (32) TOB S R = β(y I Q) C T, if β < ω α (33) S R = α(y R Y I ) + β(y R Q) + B R C T, if ω β > ω α (34) S R = α(y R Y I ) + ω(y R Q) + B R C T, if β > ω (35) (26) (28) (30) TOB TOB I β(y I Q) Q Y I Q < Y I (31) (32) TOB TOB α α(y R Y I ) β(y R Q) TOB TOB ω (32) ω(y R Q) TOB β < ω α TOB TOB TOB 3.1 TOB free-rider Q Y R Q = Y R

R Q = Y R TOB R S R = α(y R Y I ) + B R C T (36) R TOB S R = α(y R Y I ) + B R C T 0 (37) α(y R Y I ) B R TOB R TOB 0 α(y R Y I ) > C T (38) α R 2.1 TOB TOB TOB ToSTNET-1 2006 5 5 2005 TOB R Y R B R B R V R Y R B R Y R B R

R F R δ 0 δ 1 δ (1 δ)f R B R (δ) B R (δ) δ 0 δ 1 δ Y R = (1 δ)f R B R = B R (δ) (39) δ R Grossman-Hart 1980 Burkart-Gromb-Panunzi 1998 Grossman-Hart 1980 δ TOB 0 Grossman- Hart 1980 dilution δ δ δ B R (δ) = δf R + B 0 (40) δf R B 0 δ credible δ = δ Y R B R 3 3 TOB

free-rider (3) Q (1 δ)f R (41) TOB (1 δ)f R 5.1 0 α < ω δ (40) R TOB S R = α{(1 δ)f R Y I } + δf R + B 0 C T 0 (42) S R S R = α{(1 δ)f R Y I } + δf R + B 0 C T = αf R +(1 α) δf R + B 0 C T (43) 0 α < ω < 1 S R δ δ S R TOB TOB δ δ Y I > (1 δ)f R (44) Q Y I > Q (1 δ)f R (45) free-rider 3 TOB TOB I TOB TOB TOB TOB Q Y I > Q (1 δ)f R TOB

TOB Grossman-Hart 1980 p.47 8 TOB Y I > Q (1 δ)f R 2 (i) TOB 1 TOB (ii) TOB 1 TOB TOB TOB Y I > Q (1 δ)f R TOB pressure-to-tender Grossman-Hart 1980 Q Y I (46) Y I TOB Amihud-Kahan-Sundaram 2004 Y I observableverifiable (46) δ R B R (δ) (40) δf R 100 δ = 1 Burkart-Gromb-Panunzi 1998 B R (δ) B R (δ) [0, 1] 2 B R (0) = F R B R (1) = 0 B R (δ) < 0 (47) 0 B R (δ) F R δ

δ R δ R η R Π R Π R = η (1 δ)f R + B R (δ) (48) δ Π R δ 0 Burkart-Gromb-Panunzi 1998 p.178 Lemma 1 B R (δ) (47) TOB R η R B R (δ) = ηf R (49) δ δ δ(η) η (47) δ 5.4 Q TOB TOB Q Q < (1 δ(ω))f R (50) 5.4 Q < (1 δ( η))f R, if ω η 1 (51) TOB ω (51) TOB

Q > F R (52) TOB 2 (1 δ(ω))f R Q F R (53) Q = (1 δ(η))f R (54) ω η 1 η η η Q β = η Q α (55) β 55 η Q (54) Q = (1 δ(η Q ))F R β (52) Burkart-Gromb-Panunzi 1998 p.179 Lemma 2 B R (δ) (47) (1 δ(ω))f R > Y I R TOB (i) Q < (1 δ(ω))f R TOB (ii) Q > F R TOB (iii) (1 δ(ω))f R Q F R Q = (1 δ(α + β))f R ω α + β 1 β 5.5 R Q Q < (1 δ(ω))f R TOB Q > F R Q = F R R 100 Q = F R (1 δ(ω))f R Q F R Q

Q = (1 δ(α + β))f R (56) β R (29) Y R = (1 δ(α + β))f R Q = (1 δ(α + β))f R S R = α{(1 δ(α + β))f R Y I } + B R (δ(α + β)) C T (57) 5.4 δ(α + β) β (56) Q β 1 1 (1 δ(ω))f R Q F R R ω α + β 1 ω α β 1 α (58) (57) β S R β δ(α + β) (49) B R (δ(α + β)) = (α + β)f R (59) δ S R = αδ F R + δ B R = βδ F R < 0 (60) ω α β 1 α R β = ω α α + β = ω R S R = α{(1 δ(ω))f R Y I } + B R (δ(ω)) C T (61) TOB Q = (1 δ(ω))f R TOB 60 ω (61) R Burkart-Gromb-Panunzi 1998 p.180 Lemma 3 p.184 Lemma4 B R (δ) (47) (1 δ(ω))f R > Y I R TOB (i) α{(1 δ(ω))f R Y I } + B R (δ(ω)) < C T R TOB α{(1 δ(ω))f R Y I } + B R (δ(ω)) C T R Q =

(1 δ(ω))f R TOB β = ω α (ii) ω R TOB TOB ω δ (47) Burkart-Gromb-Panunzi 1998 5.6(ii) ω TOB 5.6(ii) 4.3 TOB TOB TOB 100 Freezeout Squeeze out 2007 TOB 5.2.1 Grossman-Hart 1980 TOB pressure-to-tender pressure-to-tender TOB Grossman-Hart 1980 (46) Amihud-Kahan-Sundaram 2004 TOB TOB I R 0 free-rider pressure-to-tender 4 1

TOB 1 TOB TOB 0 I p 0 0 1 y R TOB C T 0 1 I p 0 1 I y I 0 1 TOB µ f TOB µ s p 0 = (1 µ f µ s )y I + µ f E[ TOB ] + µ s E[ TOB ] (62) E[ TOB ] TOB q y I E[ TOB ] TOB Amihud-Kahan-Sundaram 2004 TOB max{p 0, q} (63) p 0 TOB I q TOB (63) min{p 0, y I } q max{p 0, y I } (64) q < min{p 0, y I } TOB q TOB y I max{p 0, q} = p 0

max{p 0, y I } < q TOB max{p 0, y I } < q < q q TOB R TOB [min{p 0, y I }, max{p 0, y I }] (62) (1 µ f µ s )y I + (µ f + µ s ) min{p 0, y I } p 0 (1 µ f µ s )y I + (µ f + µ s ) max{p 0, y I } (65) (65) p 0 y I p 0 y I q = p 0 = y I (66) TOB R I 100 R S R (66) S R = Y R + B R Y I C T = V R Y I C T (67) Amihud-Kahan-Sundaram 2004 6.1 B R S R = Y R Y I C T 6.1 V R Y R Amihud-Kahan- Sundaram 2004 p.1332 Proposition 2 (63) (i) Y R Y I C T > 0 TOB (ii) Y R Y I C T < 0 TOB (iii) Y R Y I C T = 0 TOB TOB R I 6.1 B R 0 6.1 TOB TOB

Y R Y I C T 0 (68) TOB 2.1(iii) B R 0 6.1 Y R Y I C T 0 (69) TOB 2.1(ii) I B I 2.1(i) (64) Gomes 2001 TOB q Amihud-Kahan-Sundaram 2004 6.1 q y I TOB (63) TOB I q y I 6.1 (66) TOB I TOB y I TOB 6.1 TOB R I R I proxy fights

Y R > Y I (70) R R R R R C P (70) S R = B R C P > 0 (71) (71) R I R I α R S R = α(y R Y I ) + B R C P > 0 (72) TOB R Y R > Y I pressure-to-tender C T > C P free-rider R Y R R R I TOB Bebchuck 1985 Bebchuk-Hart 2001 Voting-on-acquisition-offers VAO R 1 q (a) R

(b) q R q VAO 1 qy I q > y I (73) VAO free-rider pressure-to-tender y R > q y I (74) TOB free-rider y I VAO y I > q y R (75) TOB pressure-to-tender y I VAO VAO (b) free-rider (a) pressure-totender VAO q y I S R S R = V R Y I C T (76) TOB 2.1(ii) VAO TOB TOB q Bebchuk-Hart 2001

VAO 0 I TOB 1 R TOB R R 0 TOB 7.1 (a) TOB 7.1 (b) VAO free-rider pressure-to-tender 6.1 TOB Staggered Board I Staggered Board TOB TOB TOB TOB Grossman-Hart 1980 free-rider TOB TOB TOB TOB

2 freezeout TOB pressure-to-tender 2Bebchuk-Hart 2001 TOB TOB Voting-on-acquisition-offers VAO Amihud-Kahan-Sundaram 2004 freeezeout TOB TOB 2007 freezeout Amihud-Kahan-Sundaram 2004 free-dider TOB Bagnoli- Lipman 1988 Holmstrom-Nalebuff 1993 TOB TOB free-rider TOB TOB TOB

3 2 TOB Bagnoli-Lipman 1988 Holmstrom- Nalebuff 1993 TOB TOB Burkart-Gromb- Panunzi 1998 TOB TOB Amihud-Kahan-Sundaram 2004 TOB Bebchuk-Hart 2001 Shleifer- Vishny 1986 TOB Hirshleifer-Titman 1988 free-rider TOB Chowdhry-Jagadeesh 1994 TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB

TOB TOB TOB Fishman 1989 TOB TOB TOB Amihud, Y., M. Kahan, and R. Sundaram (2004), The Foundations of Freezeout Laws in Takeovers, The Journal of Finance 59, 1325-1344. Bagnoli, M., and B. Lipman (1988), Successful Takeovers without Exclision, Review of Financial Studies 1(1), 89-110. Bebchuk, L. (1985), Toward Undistorted Choice and Equal Treatment in Corporate Takeovers, Harvard Law Review 98(8), 1693-1808. Bebchuk, L. (1989), Takeover Bids Below the Expected Value of Minolity Shares, Journal of Financial and Quantative Analysis 24, 171-184. Bebchuk, L. (1994), Efficient and Inefficient Sales of Corporate Control, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 109, 957-993. Bebchuk, L. (2003), Why Firms Adopt Antitakeover Arrangements, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 152, 713-753. Bebchuk, L., and O. Hart (2001), Takeover Bids vs. Proxy Fights in Contests for Corporate Control, Working Paper, Harvard Law School. Burkhart, M., D. Gromb, and F. Panunzi (1998), Why Higher Takeover Premia Protect Minority Shareholders, Journal of Political Economy 106, 172-204. Chowdry, B., and N. Jagadeesh (1994), Pre-Tender Offer Share Acquisition in Takeovers, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 29, 117-129. Fishman, M. (1989), Preemptive Bidding and the Role of of the Midium Exchange in Acquisitions, Journal of Finance 44, 41-57. Gomes, A. (2001), Takeovers, Freezeouts, and Risk-Arbitrage, Working Paper, University of Pennsylvania. Grossman, S. and O. Hart (1980). Takeover Bids, the Free Rider Problem, and the Theory of the Corporation, Bell Journal of Economics 11, 42-64. Hirshleifer, D. (1995), Mergers and Acquisitions: Strategic and Informational Issues, in Handbook in Operation Research and Management Science, edited by Jarrow, R., V. Maksimobik, and W. Ziemba: North-Holland.

Hirshleifer, D., and S. Titman (1990), Share Tendering Strategies and the Success of Hostile Takeover Bids, Journal of Political Economy 98, 295-328. Holmstrom, B., and B. Nalebuff (1992), To the Raider Goes the Surplus? A Reexamination of the Free-Rider Problem, Jounal of Economics and Management Strategy 1, 37-62. Shleifer, A., and R. Vishny (1986) Large Shareholders and Corporate Control, Journal of Political Economy 94, 461-488. Stein, J. (1988), Takeover Threats and Managerial Myopia, Journal of Political Economy 95, 61-80. Stein, J. (1989), Efficient Capital Markets, Inefficient Firms: A Model of Myopic Corporate Behavior, Quarterly Journal of Economics 104, 655-669. 2006 M&A 2006 2006 2005 M&A 2004 2004 M&A 2005 M&A BP