Securities Law Commons^™

Why Do Corporations Merge And Why Should Law Care?, Chris Sagers

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Mergers and acquisitions are extraordinarily prevalent in the United States, generating massive expenditures every year. However, a serious empirical puzzle lies at the heart of all that activity. That empirical phenomenon’s most remarkable feature by far is that even though it is well established in an extensive literature and implies far-reaching policy consequences, American law ignores it entirely.

Generations of researchers have failed to find evidence that merger and acquisition activity generates any lasting benefits for the combining firms’ owners or anyone else. No one seriously doubts that efficiencies of scale or technological integration are real or that acquisitions sometimes …

The Anticompetitive Effect Of Passive Investment, David Gilo

Michigan Law Review

There are many cases in which a firm passively invests in its competitor. For example, Microsoft passively invested in $150 million worth of the nonvoting stock of Apple, its historic rival in the operating systems market. Also, in November 1998, Northwest Airlines, the nation's fourth-largest airline, purchased 14% of the common stock of Continental Airlines Inc., the nation's fifth-largest (and fastest growing) airline. Northwest competes with Continental on seven routes, serving 3.6 million passengers per year. In another example, TCI, the nation's largest cable operator, became a passive investor with a 9% stake (which can be increased, under the terms …

Antiturst Law-Exemptions For Regulated Industries - Applicability Of The Antitrust Laws To Stock Exchanges, Peter D. Byrnes S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Defendant, the New York Stock Exchange, directed its members to discontinue their direct private wire connections with plaintiffs who were non-member brokers. These private wire connections were utilized primarily for facilitating transactions in the over-the-counter market. Repeated requests by plaintiffs for reinstatement were ignored, and the defendant refused to apprise the plaintiffs of the reasons for its action. Plaintiffs then brought suit, seeking damages and injunctive relief pursuant to sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. Maintaining that defendant's conduct violated section 1 of the Sherman Act, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. Held, motion granted.6 Defendant does not …

Federal Antitrust Law - Stockholders' Remedies For Corporate Injury Resulting From Antitrust Violations: Derivative Antitrust Suit And Fiduciary Duty Action, William Y. Webb S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The question of what remedies are available to a stockholder whose corporation has been injured or is threatened with injury by acts violative of the federal antitrust laws is largely unexplored. The staggering fines suffered by a number of corporations in the recent electrical industry criminal antitrust convictions demonstrate, however, that the question is both timely and important. Moreover, its answer could have a great impact both upon the means of protecting corporate minority rights and upon the means of private enforcement of the federal antitrust laws. The stockholders' derivative suit affords two remedies which deal with these two points …

Antitrust Laws- Judicial Relief For Violations Of Section Seven Of The Clayton Act - Disenfranchisement In United States V. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Barbara B. Burt S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

This comment will approach section 7 relief questions and solutions primarily in the light of du Pont's unique facts, which included a vertical stock acquisition made thirty years before the judicial proceeding plus the complicating factors of vast financial interests, numerous innocent investors and several corporate interrelationships. Thereby were posed complex problems regarding (1) parties to the relief determination, (2) interests to be affected by the decree and (3) the manner of affecting those interests.

Integration Of Public Utility Holding Companies, Robert F. Ritchie

Michigan Legal Studies Series

The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 was one of the most controversial pieces of legislation ever enacted by Congress, but despite this fact it has withstood numerous and vigorous attacks upon its constitutionality and, further, it has never been amended in any material respect. The Securities and Exchange Commission was confronted in 1935 with one of the most difficult administrative tasks in modern history. How it met and resolved the difficult problems of geographical and economic integration, arising under the so-called "death sentence" provisions of this Act, is the subject matter of this publication.

The research involved in …

Corporations - Shareholders - Right To Bring Derivative Action For Treble Damages Under Antitrust Laws, William K. Davenport S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, owner of 50 percent of the stock in a theater corporation, brought a derivative action in federal court for treble damages for loss of profits allegedly suffered from defendant's violation of the antitrust laws. The district court sustained defendant's motion to dismiss. On appeal to the court of appeals, held, reversed and remanded. Under the new federal rules, a stockholder may bring a derivative action for treble damages under the antitrust laws. Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., (2d Cir. 1953) 202 F. (2d) 731.

"Fair And Equitable" Distribution Of Voting Power Under The Public Utility Holding Company Act Of 1935, Leo W. Leary

Michigan Law Review

In the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 Congress gave the Securities and Exchange Commission the task of investigating voting power distribution among security holders in electric and gas holding companies and their subsidiaries. If the Commission finds that the corporate structure or continued existence of any company in a holding company system "unfairly or inequitably" distributes voting power among the investors in the system, it is the Commission's duty to order the offending corporation to take "such steps as the Commission shall find necessary" to cure this condition. This paper is an attempt to ascertain what the Commission …

The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934, John E. Tracy, Alfred Brunson Macchesney

Michigan Law Review

The Congress has enacted and the President has just signed an act for the regulation of stock exchanges, to be known as the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In order that we may understand the nature of the Act and the reasons for its enactment, it will be well first to consider briefly the organization and functions of stock exchanges, the evils that are claimed to have arisen from their existence, and some of the previous attempts which have been made to prevent the occurrence of such evils.

Corporations - New Types Of Securities Under Blue Sky Legislation

Michigan Law Review

The plaintiff company, in order to secure capital to finance the purchase and construction of retail gasoline stations and bulk plants in Wisconsin, proposed to sell coupon books for the sum of $35 per book. Purchases made with these coupons entitled the holder of the book to certain credits which, upon accumulation, were to be redistributed to him in cash upon presentation of coupons in the amount of 25 cents or more. Along with each coupon book there was to be issued to each purchaser a so-called good-will contract which, after stating its purpose as being to secure the good …

Intercorporate Stockholding Under Section 7 Of The Clayton Act

Michigan Law Review

It is notorious that the Clayton Act was passed in response to misguided popular agitation based upon erroneous notions as to the scope and effect of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, and in fulfilment of, campaign promises voiced not only by Wilson, but embodied in the platforms of all three political parties in 1912. Stevens, "The Federal Trade Commission Act," 4 AMER. ECON. REV. 840; "The Clayton Act," 5 ibid. 38; Henderson, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, p. 16; Barrett, "The Federal Trade Commission," 81 CENT. L. J.; 166-171, 183-189, 201-207; Taft, THE ANTI-TRUST ACT AND THE SUPREME COURT. Even without the …

The Government's Suit Against The Union Pacific Railroad Company, Edson R. Sunderland

Michigan Law Review

On February 1st, 1908, a bill was filed in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Utah by the government of the United States, against the Union Pacific, the Southern Pacific, the Northern Pacific, the Great Northern, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe and the San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake railroad companies, and several individual defendants, under the Anti-Trust law. The principal defendant is the Union Pacific company, which is charged by the government with controlling or influencing the management of the other defendant corporations, in restraint of competition. The suit was brought at the direct …