Suchergebnisse

The share buyback regulation was enacted by the Government of India (GOI) in 1998 with an objective to revive the fast declining Indian capital markets and protect the interest of the investors and companies from hostile takeover bids[1]. Until 2004, the buyback process did not gain any momentum, but the year 2004 witnessed a series of share buyback announcements and this process has continued until the present day. There is much discussion in media and financial circles about this issue, but little effort was made to know the reasons behind such buyback decisions. The present study has analyzed the corporate actions such as the "free cash" policy, dividend distribution, change in capital structure and lower profitability while deciding interpreting the intent behind these 'tender offer buyback' and 'open market buyback' offers between January 2004 to December 2017.The study uses a sample of ninety open market repurchasing companies with a similar number of non-repurchasing companies and of fifty-four tender buyback companies with fifty-four non-repurchasing companies in the same industry having similar market capitalization and listed on Bombay stock exchange (BSE). To investigate the drivers of open market buyback and tender offer buyback in India, a Tobit regression analysis has been used. The study concludes that 'Tender offer buyback' is used more predominantly for capital structure corrections, while in the case of open market repurchase in India, dividend substitution and capital structure correction act as the key drivers. Whether 'size of the firms' make any significant difference or not, study revealed positive impact on the motive for buybacks. A hostile takeover is a corporate phenomenon that entails the acquisition of a certain block of equity shares of a company giving the acquirer a larger stake in the company than its promoters. That enables the acquiring company to exercise control over the affairs of the company.

This paper investigated restructuring anxiety in the African Union, Hemisphere North and their Trans-National Corporations in Nigeria. The paper discovered that ethnic groups and even scholarship on the restructuring debate in Nigeria are silent on the possible actions and inactions of the A.U, Britain, the U.S., France, and their TNCs (especially the Royal/Dutch Shell) operating in Nigeria. In the attempt to fill this gap, this paper recalls that to the extent that the then O.A.U (now A.U), world capitals in London, Washington D.C and Paris, and their TNCs were interested parties in course of the Nigerian Civil War, restructuring anxiety in these named actors would most likely work to undermine the genuine aspirations of certain ethnic groups of a restructured Nigeria. The paper recommends that the A.U, the global North and their TNCs must demonstrate unbiased interests in the Nigerian project by supporting to work out an equitable federal structure that would promote mutual co-existence among the diverse ethnic nationalities in Nigeria; a restructured Nigeria that would further strengthen her internal co-existence and her bilateral relations with the international community.