Esa introducción sirve para recomendar la lectura de dos interesantes artículos sobre la materia incluidos en el último número de la Rivista delle Società (fasc. 4º, julio-agosto 2010). El primero de esos artículos lo firma el Profesor Luca Enriques bajo el título “Né con gli scalatori né con i gruppi di comando: per una disciplina neutrale sulle opa nell’Unione Europea” (pp. 657-679). Mereció una referencia en el blog del Profesor Jesús Alfaro, a donde remito al lector interesado.
Me limitaré a llamar la atención sobre el segundo de esos artículos que, escrito por los Profesores Guido Ferrarini y Geoffrey P. Miller se titula “A Simple Theory of Takeover Regulation in the United States and Europe” (pp. 680-719). Es una investigación que a las razones ya apuntadas que hacen interesante el análisis legal de las OPAs, añade el análisis comparado de esa regulación en Estados Unidos y en Europa. Se parte de una tesis sencilla:
“The law on takeovers, as it has developed in the European Union, differs in substance and spirit from the U.S. approach. What are those differences, and how can they be explained? The thesis of this paper is that takeover regulation in both regions is shaped by two principal factors: (1) differences in the political power of targets and bidders at different geographic levels and (2) the respective political power of bidders and targets within a given geographic are” (p. 680).
“How can we explain the pattern in Delaware? The answer, within the framework of the model presented, is that, because Delaware is home to a majority of the major American corporations, its field of political forces includes strong bidder interests. If Delaware adopts strong target protections, the result will be to place many potential targets out of reach of a hostile acquisition, not just a few. Bidders have more to lose from such legislation. At the same time, because so many large firms are incorporated in Delaware (and others may wish to incorporate there), many bidders will be able to exercise political influence in the state. Because relatively few potential target firms are located in Delaware, their political influence is correspondingly lower. We expect, therefore, that Delaware will adopt intermediate protections for target firms – exactly what is observed in practice” (p. 692).
La siguiente referencia está lógicamente en Europa. En concreto, los autores plantean su teoría respecto a cómo han incorporado los Estados miembros las medidas establecidas en la Directiva en materia de OPAs:
“Our theory predicts that member state implementation of the Takeover Directive will be skewed in favor of targets because in any given member state the political power of potential targets will be significantly greater than the power of potential bidders. We also anticipate that, as among member states, the stringency of antitakeover protections will be a function of the ratio of target-to-bidder political power, which may vary from state to state. These predictions are consistent with the pattern of implementation among major member states” (p. 699).
Al realizar un balance sobre la incorporación de la Directiva por parte de los Estados miembros, parece poder afirmarse que ha primado el respeto hacía la utilización de las distintas medidas de defensa:
“Our model predicts that takeover regulation in member states will be more target-friendly than the regulation at the EU level. This prediction is confirmed in the implementing legislation just discussed. Each of the jurisdictions we examined opted out of the breakthrough rules, thus leaving open a wide range for the operation of privately crafted takeover defenses. The board neutrality rule was more popular, but, even here, two of the countries –Italy and Germany- opted out of the Directive. Overall, the pattern strongly confirms the prediction of more friendly take over rules at the member-state level” (p. 716).
Me ha parecido interesante copiar la referencia a la experiencia española, a que se incluye en cuanto parece subrayar que nuestro ordenamiento ha terminado por facilitar a los gestores un especial nivel de protección frente a OPAs que se puedan considerar hostiles:
“Spain, like Italy, has many family-owned firms which are substantially protected from hostile takeovers due to large block ownership. We would predict, therefore, that Spain would adopt an intermediate level of takeover protection. This prediction appears to be borne out. Spain’s implementing legislation adopts board neutrality but rejects the breakthrough rules. Background law in Spain permits a substantial but not unlimited array of takeover defenses that would otherwise be subject to challenge under the breakthrough rules. Spanish law thus provides significant protections to incumbent managers, going well beyond what would be permissible under the Directive in the absence of legislation opting out of the breakthrough rules, but still less protection than is available in Germany and France” (p. 718).
Las conclusiones del artículo permiten constatar hasta qué punto es la política la que ha terminado influyendo de forma decisiva en cuál es la respuesta normativa dada al régimen de las OPAs. Un régimen que oscila entre lo que podría definirse como un alineamiento con los oferentes, facilitando no sólo la presentación de OPAs, sino que éstas encuentren la menor resistencia posible, frente a la posición que favorece a las posibles sociedades objeto de una OPA, a las que se tutela permitiendo el uso de muy diversas medidas defensivas:
“The respective political powers of bidders and targets tend to be a function of geographic size of the territory within which a takeover law operates: the larger the territory, the larger the power of bidders vis-à-vis targets (and vice versa). Thus, other things being equal, we expect to observe that takeover regulation will be increasingly target-friendly as the geographic scope of regulation narrows.
...
Restrictive takeover rules can be expected in jurisdictions where targets are strongly represented or feel vulnerable to hostile bids; more liberal rules are to be expected in jurisdictions where bidders are strongly present or targets are insulated from takeover threats for reasons other than the takeover regime” (p. 719).
Madrid, 2 de noviembre de 2010
