UT Soft Law Review

UT Soft Law Review No.2 2010and resolve disputes under the Code. The Takeover Panel was a completely private bodyRecall the key institutional features of UK takeover policy: board neutrality, plus amandatory until just bid a few rule years and ago. a Takeover As Table Panel 1 shows, composed the Takeover of experts Panel to issue consults interpretations with market andresolve disputes under the Code. The Takeover Panel was a completely private body untiljust participants a few years in ago. about As 50% Table more 1 shows, cases the than Takeover there are Panel bids. consults This suggests with market that the participants Takeoverin about 50% more cases than there are bids. This suggests that the Takeover Panel plays adirect, Panel ongoing plays a role direct, in consulting ongoing role with in market consulting participants with market to influence participants behavior to influencerelation toactual and potential takeover bids.behavior in relation to actual and potential takeover bids.Table Table 1 2Ex Ante Ex engagements Ante engagements by Takeover by Takeover Panel, 1969-2007 Panel, 1969-2007 14 14The Takeover The Takeover Panel also Panel plays also an plays enforcement an enforcement role. As role. Table As 2 shows, Table 2 it shows, sanctions it marketplayers for their conduct in relation to takeover activity. These sanctions include a simpleprivate sanctions reprimand market as players well as for a more their formal conduct public in relation censure. to takeover Interestingly, activity. there These is virtually nolitigation regarding takeovers in the UK courts.sanctions include a simple private reprimand as well as a more formal public censure.Interestingly, there is virtually no litigation regarding takeovers in the UK courts.14 Source: John Armour, Enforcement Strategies in UK Corporate Governance: A Roadmap and Empirical14 Assessment, Source: John ECGI Armour, Law Working Enforcement Paper Strategies No.106/2008.in UK Corporate Governance: A Roadmap and EmpiricalAssessment, ECGI Law Working Paper No.106/2008.3512