Search

One of the most important developments underlying capital markets in recent years is the increase in the influence of activist minority shareholders. In a company without a controlling shareholder, dominant and activist shareholders, who hold only a low proportion of the company's shares, can influence and even tip the scales in the decisions made and direct the company's business. The legal system therefore imposes a fiduciary duty not only on controlling shareholders but also on those with effective control. Alongside the obligation, however, the absence of a clear and explicit definition of the concepts of effective power and effective control stands out. The Article empirically analyzes key court decisions litigated under Delaware law and finds that only two explanatory variables significantly explain court decisions in cases where the question of effective control arises. It therefore proposes a test for estimating shareholders' effective power borrowed from the field of cooperative game theory. The test is based on the Shapley Value and Shapley and Shubik's Power Index. The Article presents its application to decisions made at shareholders' meetings to estimate the effective power of activist minority shareholders in various decisions. This test is simple to operate, objectively examines the situation based on the factual system that existed at the time the decision was made, and is not limited to specific ownership structures, particular markets, or current times. Adoption of the test is expected to increase the legal certainty regarding the imposition of duties on activist minority shareholders with effective control, thereby reducing the agency costs created as a result of the gap between their formal share in the corporation and their effective power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I analyze the legal rules governing the sale-of-corporate-control in the case of going private transactions and examine whether a controlling shareholder must share the premium associated with sale-of-control. I rely on the framework developed in (Bebchuk, L.A. 1994. "Efficient and Inefficient Sales of Corporate Control," 109 Quarterly Journal of Economics 957–993) regarding these transactions under the adjusted market rule (AMR) enabling different rights for the controlling and minority shareholders, and under the adjusted equal opportunity rule (AEOR) providing equal rights to the minorities and controller. My main findings are that both rules prevent inefficient transfers, since under both the new controller fully internalizes the externality imposed by extracting private benefits of control. However, the AMR is superior in facilitating efficient transfers. This is because the AEOR can prevent efficient transfers, due to the higher price demanded from the buyer in order to compensate both controller and minorities. In consequence, overall, the AMR dominates the AEOR for transactions in which a company is taken private. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]