<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/contributor/johannes-fedderke/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:10:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>The Biases of an “Unbiased” Optional Takeover Regime</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/01/26/the-biases-of-an-unbiased-optional-takeover-regime/</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/01/26/the-biases-of-an-unbiased-optional-takeover-regime/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:09:14 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Academic Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Corporate Governance & Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers & Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bidders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Controlling shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hostile takeover]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Italy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ownership structure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private ordering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public firms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder value]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stakeholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Takeover defenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Takeovers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/?p=72382?d=20160126100914EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The conundrum of the perfect balance between mandatory and enabling rules and the role of private ordering in takeover regulation is one of the most relevant and interesting issues regarding the optimal regime for acquisitions of listed corporations. The issue is rife with complex questions and implications, both from a more technical legal perspective and [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Marco Ventoruzzo, Bocconi University and Pennsylvania State University, on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 </em><div style="background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px"><strong>Editor's Note: </strong> <a href="https://law.psu.edu/faculty/ventoruzzo" target="_blank">Marco Ventoruzzo</a> is a comparative business law scholar with a joint appointment with the Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law and Bocconi University. This post is based on a recent <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2706602" target="_blank">article</a> authored by Prof. Ventoruzzo and <a href="https://www.sia.psu.edu/faculty/fedderke" target="_blank">Johannes Fedderke</a>, Professor of International Affairs at Pennsylvania State University School of International Affairs.
</div></hgroup><p>The conundrum of the perfect balance between mandatory and enabling rules and the role of private ordering in takeover regulation is one of the most relevant and interesting issues regarding the optimal regime for acquisitions of listed corporations. The issue is rife with complex questions and implications, both from a more technical legal perspective and in terms of public choice.</p>
<p>In a recent and compelling article (available <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2258926" target="_blank">here</a> and published in the <em>Harvard Business Law Review</em> in 2014, and discussed on the Forum <a href="http://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/05/22/the-case-for-an-unbiased-takeover-law/">here</a>), Luca Enriques, Ron Gilson and Alessio Pacces have argued the desirability of an optional, default regime to regulate takeovers particularly in the European Union. According to this approach, which the proponents call “unbiased,” listed corporations should be allowed to opt out of the default regime and use private ordering to tailor more desirable rules on the “pillars” of the European approach: mandatory bid, board neutrality, and breakthrough. More precisely, they suggest a dichotomy, distinguishing already listed corporations and new IPOs: for the former, the default regime should be the one currently in place; for the latter, a regime crafted against the interests of the existing incumbents should be introduced. With adequate protections and procedural rules, the theory goes, it would be easier to achieve a more efficient regulatory structure.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/01/26/the-biases-of-an-unbiased-optional-takeover-regime/#more-72382" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading The Biases of an “Unbiased” Optional Takeover Regime">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/01/26/the-biases-of-an-unbiased-optional-takeover-regime/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
