An Overview:
The twentieth century began with the process of transformation of entire business scenario. The economy of India which was hitherto controlled and regulated by the Government was set free to seize new opportunities available in the world. With the announcement of the policy of globalization, the doors of Indian economy were opened for the overseas investors. But to compete at the world platform, the scale of business was needed to be increased. In this changed scenario, mergers and acquisitions were the best option available for the corporates considering the time factor involved in capturing the opportunities made available by the globalization.
This new weapon in the armoury of corporates though proved to be beneficial but soon the predators with huge disposable wealth started exploiting this opportunity to the prejudice of retail investor. This created a need for some regulation to protect the interest of investors so that the process of takeover and mergers is used to develop the securities market and not to sabotage it[1].
Broadly, speaking, companies incorporated under the Act can be classified as:
(i) A public company listed on recognized stock exchanges, i.e., a listed public company;
(ii) A public company not listed on any stock exchanges, i.e., an unlisted public company;
(ill) A private company; and
(iv) A private company, which is subsidiary of a public company.
The recent M&A boom in India has been comprised exclusively of friendly deals, and since its economic liberalization in 1991, India has experienced only a handful of hostile takeover attempts. Conventional wisdom suggests that hostile takeovers by foreign enterprises will not occur in India because of (i) the prevalence of controlling shareholders in most Indian corporations and the significant shareholding of Indian financial institutions that generally side with controllers, (ii) the necessity of obtaining onerous government approvals for foreign acquisitions that would make hostile takeovers impossible, and (iii) provisions in the Indian Takeover Code favoring existing controlling shareholders. Analysis of the shareholding composition, legal impediments and regulatory restrictions facing the BSE 100 and BSE 500 companies in India suggests that presently at least 8-15% of Indian companies, including some of India's most prominent, face the theoretical prospect of being taken over by foreign acquirers without the consent of existing controlling shareholders. And unlike their counterparts in the United States, these vulnerable Indian companies may not avail themselves of takeover defences such as the poison pill and staggered board; indeed, aside from attempting to increase the stake of the controlling shareholder, value-destroying scorched earth tactics may be the only effective takeover defences available to susceptible Indian companies today.
Indian policymakers face an important regulatory opportunity. While the government has made the decision to permit foreign hostile takeovers, regulators still have discretion to decide the extent to which the free market for corporate control its policies currently permit is desirable for its companies, investors, and other stakeholders. However they come out on this important policy decision, Indian regulators should ensure that, unlike under the current scheme, they make their policy intentions on hostile takeovers clear through explicit regulation and policy statements in the Takeover Code. Moreover, India's securities regulator, SEBI, adopt a principles-based standard in the Takeover Code that would prevent the kind of pernicious scorched earth tactics and embedded contractual defenses that may otherwise proliferate given the absence of more traditional takeover defenses[2].
Scope of Takeovers & Takeover Regulations:
The term ‘takeover' is nowhere defined in the Companies Act 1956 (Act) or in Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 (SEBI Act), or in SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations 1997 (takeover Code). In the absence of a legal definition, the term takeover has to be understood from its commercial usage. In commercial parlance, the term takeover denotes the act of a person or group of persons (acquirer) acquiring shares or acquiring voting rights or both of a company (target company), from its shareholders, either through private negotiations with majority shareholders, or by a public offer in the open market with an intention to gain control over its m:friagement. Thus, the term ‘takeover' may be described as the process whereby the majority of the voting capital of a company is bought through secret acquisition of shares or through a public offer to the shareholders. A takeover is considered ‘hostile' when the management of the target company resists the attempted takeover.
Likewise the expression ‘acquisition' is also not defined in any of the statutes referred above. Generally, an acquisition denotes the purchase of shares of a target company. When such a purchase of shares is with an intention to take control of the target company, such an acquisition becomes a takeover. Therefore, irrespective of whether there is a takeover of a company' or not, acquisition of shares occurs whenever shares of the target company changes hands. However, these two expressions are synonymously used in takeover transactions[3].
Takeover implies acquisition of control of a company which is already registered through the purchase or exchange of shares. Takeover takes place usually by acquisition or purchase from the shareholders of a company their shares at a specified price to the extent of at least controlling interest in order to gain control of the company[4].
Takeover is a business strategy of acquiring control over the management of the target company-either directly or indirectly. The motive of acquirer is to gain control over the board of directors of the target company for synergy in decision-making. The eagle eyes of raiders are on the lookout for cash rich and high growth rate of companies with low equity stake of promoters.
Despite their prominence elsewhere, hostile takeovers have been largely alien to Indian listed companies that have rarely witnessed raids by hostile acquirers. This may lead one to believe that the Indian legal system – with the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2007[5] (the Takeover Code) being the legislation on point - is friendly to incumbent shareholders and management and is unfriendly to raiders. However, a reading of the Takeover Code would reveal that it does not prohibit hostile takeovers, and even more, it in fact imposes various restrictions on incumbent promoters and management once an open offer is made, thereby enhancing the leverage available to the hostile acquirer.
An acquisition of shares of a listed target company is governed, inter alia, by the Companies Act, the SEBI Act and the Takeover Code. Such an acquisition is also subject to the intervention and supervision of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). In respect of acquisition of shares of other target companies, the governing law is contained in S. 108 of the Act, where the transfer of shares takes place on the basis of mutual agreement between the parties without any intervention of external authorities. However, if the acquisition of shares in these companies results in the acquirer gaining control over the management of a listed company, the provisions of the Takeover Code shall apply to such an acquisition.
First is the Takeover Code, which as discussed above does not present any direct hindrance to hostile acquisitions. Second is the foreign investment policy of the Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) that deal with acquisition of shares by foreign acquirers. Even these have been largely liberalised in 2006 (by a Press Note – the relevant paragraph is 2e) enabling foreign acquirers to buy shares in Indian companies without the approval of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) or the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) even in case of an unsolicited offer made under the Takeover Code. Foreign acquirers may buy shares in Indian companies without prior approvals, except in specified sectors or where sectoral caps are exceeded, so long as the price is at or above the prevailing market price of the shares[6].
The basic principle is that when acquisition becomes a takeover, the Takeover Code becomes applicable besides other provisions of the Act. In other words, in case of a takeover, compliance of both the Takeover Code as well as that of the Act is necessary, while in case of acquisition simplicitor, compliance of only the Act is required.
Further, if an acquisition results in a ‘combination'[7], then the provisions of the Competition Act 2002 also become applicable, and the approval of the Competition Commission of India is required. If the acquisition results in either inflow or outflow of funds, to or from India, then the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) would become applicable and in such a case, the permission from either the Reserve Bank of India or the Central Government may be required.
Thus, in case of acquisitions, the applicable laws and regulating authorities may involve all of the above or some of them, as the case may be.
Corporate Raiding:
A corporate raid is a business term for buying a large interest in a corporation and then using voting rights to enact measures directed at increasing the share value, sometimes also referred to as breaking a company[8]. It describes a particular type of hostile takeover in which the assets of the purchased company are immediately sold off. The target company essentially disappears in the process. The measures might include replacing top executives, downsizing operations, or liquidating the company. Management of many large publicly traded corporations reacted negatively to the threat of potential hostile takeover or corporate raid and pursued drastic defensive measures including poison pills, golden parachutes and increasing debt levels on the company's balance sheet. In later years, many of the corporate raiders would be re-characterized as "activist shareholders"[9].
This can be a profitable exercise if the company holds disposable assets or liquid investments that are valued higher than the company's current market cap. Examples would include companies holding valuable land or equipment, while their stock price is too low due to market factors. After taking a "hit" on their stock price for whatever reason, companies can become targets for a leveraged buyout[10].
Although the "corporate raider" moniker is rarely applied to contemporary private equity investors, there is no formal distinction between a "corporate raid" and other private equity investments acquisitions of existing businesses[11]. The label was typically ascribed by constituencies within the acquired company or the media. However, a corporate raid would typically feature a leveraged buyout that would involve a hostile takeover of the company, perceived asset stripping, major layoffs or other significant corporate restructuring activities. Additionally, the threat of the corporate raid would lead to the practice of "greenmail", where a corporate raider or other party would acquire a significant stake in the stock of a company and receive an incentive payment (effectively a bribe) from the company in order to avoid pursuing a hostile takeover of the company. Greenmail represented a transfer payment from a company's existing shareholders to a third party investor and provided no value to existing shareholders but did benefit to existing managers. The practice of "greenmail" is not typically considered a tactic of private equity investors and is not condoned by market participants.
Among the most notable corporate raiders of the 1980s were Carl Icahn, Victor Posner, Nelson Peltz, Robert M. Bass, T. Boone Pickens, Harold Clark Simmons, Kirk Kerkorian, Sir James Goldsmith, Saul Steinberg and Asher Edelman. Carl Icahn developed a reputation as a ruthless corporate raider after his hostile takeover of TWA in 1985. The result of that takeover was Icahn systematically selling TWA's assets to repay the debt he used to purchase the company, which was described as asset stripping. In 1985, Pickens was profiled on the cover of Time magazine as "one of the most famous and controversial businessmen in the U.S." for his pursuit of Unocal, Gulf Oil and Cities Services. In later years, many of the corporate raiders would be re-characterized as "Activist shareholders". Many of the corporate raiders were onetime clients of Michael Milken, whose investment banking firm Drexel Burnham Lambert helped raise blind pools of capital with which corporate raiders could make a legitimate attempt to take over a company and provided high-yield debt financing of the buyouts[12].
Corporate raids became the hallmark of a handful of investors in the 1970s and 80s who built up large lines of credit and were able to purchase huge companies for little or no cash, often through the issuance of junk bonds. These corporate raiders gained a reputation for destroying a number of well-run companies, although this may be somewhat overstating the issue[13].
Some believe that one side effect of the corporate raiding era is that companies are much more defensive, which many argue is not a good thing for the economy. Others argue that corporate raids prevent corporate managers from becoming too complacent and serve to redistribute capital from lesser sectors to more productive sectors of the economy. In particular, some argue that the apparent superior performance of American companies in the 1990s in comparison with German or Japanese companies arose because the latter companies are protected from corporate raids.
Opponents of the corporate raid argue that this typically occurs only to well-run companies who are successfully managing their money. In addition, they argue that corporate raids cause large economic disruption and create unemployment as factories are sold off and closed. Proponents of the corporate raid argue that companies which have huge assets and low stock prices are not managing their money well and should either attempt to regain market confidence by boosting their share prices or else liquidate some of their assets and return the money to their shareholders.
In the early 1980s, a corporate raider would quietly purchase large amounts of a company's undervalued stock. He (the raider tended to be male) then publicly announced his
intent to buy a controlling interest in the company, creating a demand for the company's stock where none previously existed. The corporate raider railed against what he considered to be a group of incompetent managers and proposed hiring more capable executives for the good of shareholders. The entrenched managers didn't think themselves incompetent. Wanting to protect their own jobs and careers, they countered with a doomsday takeover scenario in hopes
that shareholders would remain loyal to them. Based on rather solid historical evidence, management predicted that the corporate raider would drastically cut costs, selfishly pocket
excess cash, transfer the most profitable units to another firm in the raider's stock portfolio, sell other units to the highest bidder, liquidate the remains, and, in the process, disrupt the
lives of dedicated employees and community members. Many raiders pursued such strategies because the company's individual parts were worth more than the whole of the organization.[14]
Stockholders enjoyed a financial windfall while the corporate raider and managers battled for their hearts, minds, and wallets. The price of the company's previously stagnant stock
increased dramatically as more people wanted the premium price the raider would have to pay to obtain a controlling interest in the company. Although the higher stock price made
the company a more expensive takeover target, the corporate raider, who already owned a substantial amount of stock, saw the value of his stock portfolio shoot upward[15].
After management's appeal to shareholders not to sell stock to the raider fell on deaf ears as was often the case managers sought a "white knight" willing to buy substantial shares of stock under more friendly conditions. This typically included the continued employment of the current management team. Or, managers could make the company financially
unattractive to the corporate raider by either selling off the most highly prized assets or taking on massive debt[16].
At this point in the poker game, the corporate raider cashed in his chips. The white knight or winning management team would pay the raider a premium stock price, referred to as "greenmail," just to get rid of him. In the end, the raider increased his wealth, which is what it was all really about in the first place. The management team's jobs were once again
secure. Unfortunately, the remaining organization was in a financial mess[17].
Merger or takeover or acquisition can be achieved by following different means such as purchase of assets or shares of a target company or by means of scheme of arrangement following the procedure laid down under the Companies Act, 1956 under section 391 to 396A. The raids, bids and defences are the outcome of human, moods. Corporate wars and offensive postures can be avoided and the war moods of opponents can be stalled through defensive steps. In most countries, a hostile takeover or corporate raid is a method for taking over a company by buying a large stake, typically without the explicit approval of either the board or shareholders, and then using shareholder voting rights to enact measures directed at increasing the company's share value (cost cutting, restructuring, downsizing, liquidation, selling off assets, etc.). Such raids in India may involve the use of law enforcement agencies or security services to force out the current management, and often seek the capture of documents to make future fraudulent legal filings. Other raiding techniques include forced insolvency, documents falsification, fraudulent share registries, greenmail, shareholder lawsuits, and more recently, partnering with financial institutions to use credit as means to acquire real assets. Corporate raiding evolved in Russia during 1990s' when the Soviet Union collapsed and led the economy towards privatization. Raiding is done in following types such as Creditor-based attacks, Forced insolvency, Shareholder schemes, Abuse of complicated business laws, Takeover with the use of physical force. The case of Hermitage Capital and its media-savvy CEO William Browder is notable as an example of raiding.
Consequences of raiding is broader than which can be visualised it may lead to political, social or economic problems. As corporate raiding becomes more pervasive than it already is, successful entrepreneurs must also spend a significant amount of time and resources protecting their businesses from raiders, risking the loss of property, jail, or even physical violence if hostile takeovers fails. There is a necessity for the business community to be educated about the possible threat that may be caused by the raiders, they should be educated with regard to their ownership rights, share registries etc,. The Central Government has favoured mergers and amalgamations and takeovers when such combinations of two or more companies are in the interest of general public and for promotion of industry and trade. But it is the policy of the Government to safeguard the interest of shareholders and investors hence the Government constituted Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI') which recently relaxed the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (‘SEBI Takeover Code') which governs the takeovers of listed companies in India. Techniques used in raids are such as Techniques of raid takeover bid and tender offer. The procedure for organizing takeovers includes collection of relevant information and its analysis, examine shareholders' profile, investigation of title and searches into indebtedness, examining of articles of association etc,. Defence against takeover bid may be in the form of advance preventive measures for defence such as - joint holdings or joint voting agreement, interlocking shareholdings or cross shareholdings, issue of block of shares to friends and associates, defensive merger apart from other things. Tactical defence' strategies include friendly purchase of shares, emotional attachment, loyalty and patriotism, recourse to legal action, operation ‘White Knights', "Golden Parachutes" etc,.
Four basic tactics or schemes can be carved out when we study the practice of corporate raiding which are bankruptcy, corporate, litigation, and land schemes to be the most widespread apart from the other supplementary tactics such as the creation and presentation of false evidence in civil litigation. At least three causes can be identified, first is the general uncertainty of property rights resulting from the privatization of state assets, second cause is poor corporate governance and final cause of raiding is the fact that the legal system is simply not yet equipped to deal with this novel form of crime. The court structure, the inadequacy of criminal law, the flaws in criminal investigation, the problems of good faith purchaser and the verification of corporate documents are also among the loopholes that can be identified. In order to address this problem, a new bankruptcy law must be imposed with more stringent screening and ethical requirements for trustees, expanding the time for judges to consider and take decisions, and also expand debtors' rights to contest creditors' petitions.
The corrupt acquisition of control over the target company usually by falsifying internal corporate documents and/or corruptly obtaining control over a significant portion of the voting stock or the board of directors of the target company is common in nature. The raider may create a false power of attorney or other document authorizing him or a co-conspirator to enter into transactions on behalf of the target company and then transfer the target's assets to himself or affiliated companies or the raider bribes officials at state registration agencies to alter the target company's registration documents to give him and/or his confederates faux control over the target company. He then uses this control to drain off the target's assets[18].
Another important tactic that may be used by raider is the creation and presentation of false evidence in civil litigation. For example, in answering claims by victims, raiders typically offer false evidence, such as fabricated contracts and corporate resolutions, to "prove" the alleged legitimacy of their acquisitions. There are certain measures that businesses can take to protect themselves. These measures include retaining qualified legal counsel to draft and review all incorporation documents and contracts, retaining corporate investigation firms to investigate partners and major customers, and, above always complying with all relevant laws and regulations[19].
The term ‘takeover' is nowhere defined in the Companies Act 1956 (Act) or in Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act), or in SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (Takeover Code). In the absence of a legal definition, the term takeover has to be understood from its commercial usage. In commercial parlance, the term takeover denotes the act of a person or group of persons (acquirer) acquiring shares or acquiring voting rights or both of a company (target company), from its shareholders, either through private negotiations with majority shareholders, or by a public offer in the open market with an intention to gain control over its management. A takeover is considered ‘hostile' when the management of the target company resists the attempted takeover.
The basic principle is that when acquisition becomes a takeover, the Takeover Code becomes applicable besides other provisions of the Act. In other words, in case of a takeover, compliance of both the Takeover Code as well as that of the Act is necessary, while in case of acquisition, compliance of only the Act is required. Further, if an acquisition results in a ‘combination', then the provisions of the Competition Act 2002 also become applicable, and the approval of the Competition Commission of India is required. If the acquisition results in either inflow or outflow of funds, to or from India, then the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 would become applicable and in such a case, the permission from either the Reserve Bank of India or the Central Government may be required.
The objective behind the Takeover Code is to bring transparency in takeover and acquisition transactions in public listed companies and to ensure that if minority shareholders are not given a raw deal through price fixation. The Takeover Code lays down the mandatory and compulsory disclosure of an acquisition if the acquirer intends to do. The procedure in case an investor wants to takeover has been clearly laid down in the Companies Act, 1956, the Takeover Code etc,. These regulatory mechanisms also lays down the offences, penalties in case of any violation, obligations and restrictions upon the merchant bankers, acquirers, the company itself etc,. Acquisition for the purpose of combination is not only the acquisition of shares or voting rights or control of management, but also acquisition of or control of assets of the target company. Thus, for the purposes of Competition Act, 2002, acquisition of shares, voting rights, assets and control of management have to be considered. In Any combination that would result in appreciable adverse effect on competition, within the relevant market in India, would be declared null and void and such an effect is to be enquired by the CCI for which the powers and the procedure is laid down under the Competition Act, 2002.
However, the era of the corporate raider appears to be largely over. In the later 1980s the famous raiders suffered from a number of bad purchases that lost money (for their backers, primarily) and the credit lines dried up. In addition, corporations became more adept at fighting hostile takeovers through mechanisms such as the poison pill. Finally the overall price of the stock market increased, which reduced the number of situations in which a company's share price was low with respect to the assets that it controlled[20].
Possible Remedial Measures:
Clearly, raiding will continue as long as there is corruption and loop hole in the law enforcement. But, in the meantime, there are steps that could be taken to alleviate the problem:
- Create mechanisms allowing for the rapid exchange of evidence in courts.
- Pass legislation specifically criminalizing raiding and establishing specialized task forces to investigate and prosecute raiding cases.
- Strengthen criminal penalties for the presentation of false evidence in civil cases and create a mechanism allowing courts to refer cases of suspected falsification to law enforcement for rapid adjudication.
- Amend the Criminal Code to allow for criminal prosecution of legal entities[21].
- Create legal mechanisms for obtaining and using cooperating witness testimony in court.
- Pass legislation allowing for the recovery, in civil litigation, of assets from good faith purchasers who had reason to know that the assets they purchased were fraudulently acquired by the seller.
- Require registering officials to check and authenticate documents presented to the Registrar of Companies that purport to reflect changes in corporate structure.
- Idly watch the corporate raider continue to purchase stock.
- Make the company less financially attractive by selling profitable units or taking on unnecessary Debts.
- Seek a "white knight" to purchase the company on friendlier terms.
- Pay the belligerent raider substantial sums of money not to purchase any more company stock.
[1] http://www.takeovercode.com/necessity_of_takeover_code.php.
[2] http://works.bepress.com/shaun_mathew/1/
[3] Seth Dua & Associates, Joint Ventures & Mergers and Acquisitions in India—Legal and Tax Aspects, 2006 Edn., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Publications.
[4] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l183-Takeovers.html.
[5] http://www.sebi.gov.in/Index.jsp?contentDisp=SubSection&sec_id=2&sub_sec_id=2
[6] http://indiacorplaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/hostile-takeovers-in-india.html.
[7] Competition Act 2002, Section 5: The acquisition of one or more enterprises by one or more persons or merger or amalgamation of enterprises shall be a combination of such enterprises and persons or enterprises, if— (a) any acquisition where— (i) the parties to the acquisition, being the acquirer and the enterprise, whose control, shares, voting rights or assets have been acquired or are being acquired jointly have,— (A) either, in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees one thousand crores or turnover more than rupees three thousand crores; or (B) in India or outside India, in aggregate, the assets of the value of more than five hundred million US dollars or turnover more than fifteen hundred million US dollars; or (ii) the group, to which the enterprise whose control, shares, assets or voting rights have been acquired or are being acquired, would belong after the acquisition, jointly have or would jointly have,— (A) either in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees four thousand crores or turnover more than rupees twelve thousand crores; or (B) in India or outside India, in aggregate, the assets of the value of more than two billion US dollars or turnover more than six billion US dollars; or (b) acquiring of control by a person over an enterprise when such person has already direct or indirect control over another enterprise engaged in production, distribution or trading of a similar or identical or substitutable goods or provision of a similar or identical or substitutable service, if— (i) the enterprise over which control has been acquired along with the enterprise over which the acquirer already has direct or indirect control jointly have,— (A) either in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees one thousand crores or turnover more than rupees three thousand crores; or (B) in India or outside India, in aggregate, the assets of the value of more than five hundred million US dollars or turnover more than fifteen hundred million US dollars; or (ii) the group, to which enterprise whose control has been acquired, or is being acquired, would belong after the acquisition, jointly have or would jointly have,— (A) either in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees four thousand crores or turnover more than rupees twelve thousand crores; or (B) in India or outside India, in aggregate, the assets of the value of more than two billion US dollars or turnover more than six billion US dollars; or (C) any merger or amalgamation in which— (i) the enterprise remaining after merger or the enterprise created as a result of the amalgamation, as the case may be, have,— (A) either in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees one thousand crores or turnover more than rupees, three thousand crores; or (B) in India or outside India, in aggregate, the assets of the value of more than five hundred million US dollars or turnover more than fifteen hundred million US dollars; or (ii) the group, to which the enterprise remaining after the merger or the enterprise created as a result of the amalgamation, would belong after the merger or the amalgamation, as the case may be, have or would have,— (A) either in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees four-thousand crores or turnover more than rupees twelve thousand crores; or(B) in I ndia or outside India, the assets of the value of more than two billion US dollars or turnover more than six billion US dollars. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,— (a) "control" includes controlling the affairs or management by—(i) one or more enterprises, either jointly or singly, over another enterprise or group; (ii) one or more groups, either jointly or singly, over another group or enterprise; (b) "group" means two or more enterprises which, directly or indirectly, are in a position to — (i) exercise twenty-six percent. or more of the voting rights in the other enterprise; or (ii) appoint more than fifty percent, of the members of the board of directors in the other enterprise; or (iii) control the management or affairs of the other enterprise; (c) the value of assets shall be determined by taking the book value of the assets as shown, in the audited books of account of the enterprise, in the financial year immediately preceding the financial year in which the date of proposed merger falls, as reduced by any depreciation, and the value of assets shall include the brand value, value of goodwill, or value of copyright, patent, permitted use, collective mark, registered proprietor, registered trade mark, registered user, homonymous geographical indication, geographical indications, design or layout-design or similar
other commercial rights, if any, referred to in sub-section (5) of section 3.
[8] http://www.freebase.com/view/en/corporate_raid.
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_raid.
[10] http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Corporate:raid.htm.
[11] http://wapedia.mobi/en/History_of_private_equity_and_venture_capital?t=5.
[12] Supra note 8.
[13] Edwards Rolph James, Corporate Raiders and Junk Car Dealers: Economics and the Politics of Merger Controversy, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol IX, No. 2 (Fall 1990).
[14] Supra note 8.
[15]http://business.edgewood.edu/behavingbadly/files/CORPORATE RAIDERSBehaving Badly PDF.
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_kinght_(business).
[17] Supra note 8.
[18] FIRESTONE, THOMAS, "Criminal Corporate Raiding in Russia," ABA Journal, June 2009.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Supra note 8.
[21] Supra note 18.
