Dear all,
I though that I this time write a few words about blogger Brian JM Quinn
who might be better known as the "M&A professor". He has a blog on M&A
related issues and in this case M&A issues only, while we focus also
on IP and technology issues as you have possibly seen so slightly narrower focus.
Well few words about Brian, he works at Boston College Law School in 2008. He teaches
Corporations, Corporations Lab, Mergers & Acquisitions, Mergers
& Acquisitions Lab, as well as Deals: The Economic Structure of
Transactions. He constantly writes about M&A related themes and if you are not following him yet, it might be worth considering. In his latest blog he is referring to Albert Choi's recent study on facilitation of Mergers and Acquisitions with Earnouts and
Purchase Price Adjustments (June 30, 2014) which was published in Virginia Law and Economics
Research Papers (Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2460777 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2460777).
Choi's paper examines how post-closing contingent payment (PCP) mechanisms
(such as earnouts and purchase price adjustments) can facilitate mergers
and acquisitions transactions. By relying on verifiable information
that is obtained after closing, PCPs can mitigate the problems of
asymmetric information over valuation and, in contrast to the
conventional understanding, this benefit applies to both earnouts and
purchase price adjustments. When both the acquirer and the target are
aware that there is a positive (but uncertain) surplus from the
transaction, PCPs function more as an imperfect verification, rather
than a signaling, mechanism and a pooling equilibrium is possible, in
which all parties adopt a PCP.
According to the summary: "When the parties are uncertain as to
whether a positive surplus exists, on the other hand, PCPs function as a
separating device, in which the seller with a positive surplus
successfully signals its valuation with a PCP. The paper also addresses
the problems of post-closing incentives to maximize (or minimize) the
PCP payments. When such a moral hazard is a concern, the paper shows
that (1) the PCPs will be structured so as to minimize the deadweight
loss and a separating equilibrium is more likely to result; and (2) when
the deadweight loss is sufficiently large, the parties will forego
using a PCP mechanism altogether."
I strongly recomment you to follow M&A Professor and also read Choi's paper and personally I found this argumentation very convincing. Let me know if you disagree!
I strongly recomment you to follow M&A Professor and also read Choi's paper and personally I found this argumentation very convincing. Let me know if you disagree!
Regards,
Jan
No comments:
Post a Comment