Author: Tom Vos

Tom Vos is an assistant professor at the Department of Private Law of Maastricht University. In his research, he focusses on corporate law, corporate governance, law and economics, and empirical studies. In addition to that, Tom is a visiting professor (10%) at the Jean-Pierre Blumberg Chair at the University of Antwerp, where he teaches a course on international corporate governance. Finally, Tom is a (part-time) Associate at the Corporate and Finance Practice at Linklaters Belgium, where he advises clients on corporate governance and securities laws.

The AkzoNobel Case: An Activist Shareholder’s Battle against the Backdrop of the Shareholder Rights Directive

Article in European Company Law

In two earlier blogposts on this blog (here and here), I commented (together with Thom Wetzer for the first post) on the two recent decisions of the Dutch courts in the AkzoNobel case. In a recently published article in the journal “European Company Law”, I further develop my arguments about this case. Continue reading “The AkzoNobel Case: An Activist Shareholder’s Battle against the Backdrop of the Shareholder Rights Directive”

Are markets efficient? A discussion between Thaler and Fama

An earlier blogpost reported the award of the Nobel Prize in Economics 2017 to Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago for his work on behavioural economics.

In this video of the Chicago Booth Review, Thaler, a vehement critic of the idea of market efficiency, engages in an interesting discussion with Eugene Fama, another University of Chicago Nobel Prize laureate (2013) and widely regarded as “the father of the efficient-market hypothesis”.

In his previous work, Eugene Fama introduced the model of “efficient capital markets”, i.e. markets that fully reflect all available information (see the paper: “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work”). The most common version of this model that is defended today, is the “semi-strong version”, according to which all publicly available information is incorporated in stock prices (but information that is held privately by some investors not necessarily so).

Thaler has spent much of his time writing about how people are not completely rational, an assumption that strongly underpins the efficient-markets hypothesis, for example in his book “Nudge” (together with Cass Sunstein) and in his book “Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics”.

In the discussion with Fama, Thaler distinguishes two aspects of the efficient-markets hypothesis: “One is whether you can beat the market. The other is whether prices are correct.” On the first aspect, Fama and Thaler are in agreement: generally, even professional mutual fund managers fail to consistently beat the market, after subtracting management costs (Michael Jensen from Harvard University first provided evidence for this hypothesis in this paper).

Fama and Thaler do disagree (and rather strongly) about the second aspect, however. In the video, Fama argues as follows about the efficient-market hypothesis: Continue reading “Are markets efficient? A discussion between Thaler and Fama”

The second episode in the AkzoNobel saga: activist shareholders lose again in Dutch court, but reach settlement

Decision of 10 Augustus 2017 by the Dutch court in summary proceedings (“voorzieningenrechter”)

In a decision of 10 Augustus 2017, the Dutch court in summary proceedings (“voorzieningenrechter”) denied the request of two activist shareholders of AkzoNobel, Elliott and York, to convene an extraordinary general meeting (“EGM”) to dismiss Akzo’s chairman of the supervisory board. The reason for the shareholders’ request was the decision of Akzo’s board not to engage in negotiations with PPG concerning its takeover bid on Akzo. The Dutch court, however, held that the shareholders failed to show a “reasonable interest” and should await the general meeting of 8 September 2017, where Akzo’s board will provide further explanation on this topic. Shortly after this decision, on 16 August 2017, Elliott and Akzo reached a standstill agreement, where Elliott agreed to suspend further litigation for at least three months. Continue reading “The second episode in the AkzoNobel saga: activist shareholders lose again in Dutch court, but reach settlement”

New ECJ ruling on price adjustments in mandatory bids in case of collusion

Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA e.a. v. Consob on article 5(4) of the Takeover Directive

In a decision of 20 July 2017 in the case Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA e.a. v. Consob, the European Court of Justice ruled for the first time on the interpretation of article 5(4) of the Takeover Directive, which covers the possibility for the national supervisory authority to adjust the price of a mandatory bid. In this case, the Italian supervisory authority, the Consob, had decided to increase the price because it believed that there was collusion between the bidder and one of the sellers. This price adjustment was allowed by Italian takeover law, but the bidder believed that the Italian law violated the Takeover Directive, arguing that the criteria for a price adjustment were insufficiently clear. Continue reading “New ECJ ruling on price adjustments in mandatory bids in case of collusion”

€1,2 billion settlement in Fortis case rejected by Dutch Court

On 16 June 2017, the Court of Amsterdam refused to approve the settlement reached in a Dutch mass claims procedure between Ageas (Fortis’ legal successor) and four claimant organisations (VEB, Deminor, SICAF and Stichting FortisEffect) concerning allegedly false or misleading statements by Fortis during the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008. The €1,2 billion settlement was the largest of its kind in Europe. The main rationale for the court’s decision? The court held that the distinction in compensation between “Active Claimants” (those who filed a legal procedure or registered with any of the claimant organisations) and “Non-Active Claimants” (those who didn’t) was unjustified and that the fees for claimant organisations were exorbitant.

This means that Ageas and the claimant organisations will have to renegotiate their settlement agreement and address the concerns of the Court, if they want to have an agreement that is binding on all potential claimants. Continue reading “€1,2 billion settlement in Fortis case rejected by Dutch Court”

Akzo Nobel: Activist Shareholders Hit Wall of Dutch Stakeholder Model

An analysis by Tom Vos & Thom Wetzer

An attempt at courtship has ended up in court. Over the past months, US paints and coatings giant PPG Industries (‘PPG’) has tried to woe the management and shareholders of Dutch rival Akzo Nobel (‘Akzo’) with friendly takeover offers. It has been rewarded by a consistently aloof response from Akzo’s boards, and especially its Chairman Antony Burgmans, who has so far refused to enter talks. On May 29, the Enterprise Chamber of Amsterdam (a Dutch commercial court) rejected efforts by some of Akzo’s shareholders, led by activist investor Elliott Management Corp. (‘Elliott’), to force a shareholder vote intended to oust Mr. Burgmans.

The case comes at a critical time in what has become an increasingly bitter exchange. Akzo has so far rejected three unsolicited friendly offers from PPG, arguing that they undervalue the company, do not make any serious commitments to its stakeholders, demonstrate a cultural lack of understanding, and entail significant risks and uncertainties (including lengthy reviews by the EU’s competition authority). Continue reading “Akzo Nobel: Activist Shareholders Hit Wall of Dutch Stakeholder Model”

“Nee is nee” – lessen uit de zaak Telegraaf Media Groep (TMG)

Concurrerende bieder bij een bod door de controlerende aandeelhouder

Afgelopen dinsdagavond deed de Ondernemingskamer te Amsterdam een uitspraak in de zaak rond de overname van Telegraaf Media Groep (TMG) door Mediahuis en de familie Van Puijenbroek (samen het “consortium”). Kort gezegd wees de rechter de voorziening van concurrerende bieder Talpa af, zodat de weg voor een overname door het consortium nu open ligt.

Deze beslissing is één van de weinige Nederlandse uitspraken over concurrerende biedingen bij een openbaar overnamebod. Het gaat in op een aantal interessante vragen over de rol van de raad van bestuur, de raad van commissarissen en de controlerende aandeelhouder bij een overname. Deze blogpost is een eerste commentaar die deze zaak in de ruimere juridische context kadert, parallellen trekt met de Amerikaanse overname-rechtspraak, en bespreekt welke lessen getrokken kunnen worden uit deze zaak. Continue reading ““Nee is nee” – lessen uit de zaak Telegraaf Media Groep (TMG)”

Een nieuwe theorie voor de waardering van aandelen bij geschillenregeling: de pro rata going concern waarde

Inleiding. Een steeds terugkomende discussie bij de geschillenregeling is de correcte waardering van aandelen. Getuige hiervan zijn de vele artikels en annotaties over de peildatum en over de vraag of bij geschillenregeling een minderheidsdécote gerechtvaardigd is.

In deze blogpost argumenteer ik dat veel van de onduidelijkheden in de rechtspraak en rechtsleer zijn terug te brengen tot een verkeerd uitgangspunt voor de waardering van aandelen in geschillenregeling, namelijk “de prijs die een onafhankelijke derde zou betalen bij een vrijwillige overname” (hierna “derde-verkoopswaarde” genoemd). Continue reading “Een nieuwe theorie voor de waardering van aandelen bij geschillenregeling: de pro rata going concern waarde”