<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Go-Shop&#8221; Provisions in Acquisition Agreements</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/03/27/go-shop-provisions-in-acquisitions-agreements/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/03/27/go-shop-provisions-in-acquisitions-agreements/</link>
	<description>Academic commentary on law, business, economics and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:06:49 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog &#187; Go-Shops With Matching Rights--and Reimbursing Topping Bidders</title>
		<link>http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/03/27/go-shop-provisions-in-acquisitions-agreements/comment-page-1/#comment-104383</link>
		<dc:creator>The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog &#187; Go-Shops With Matching Rights--and Reimbursing Topping Bidders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 03:58:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/03/27/go-shop-provisions-in-acquisitions-agreements/#comment-104383</guid>
		<description>[...] Widener Law School, precipitated by Mark&#8217;s ruminations about sellers&#8217; insistence that a go-shop provision with a matching right inÂ a merger agreement be accompanied by a right to reimburse the expenses of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Widener Law School, precipitated by Mark&#8217;s ruminations about sellers&#8217; insistence that a go-shop provision with a matching right inÂ a merger agreement be accompanied by a right to reimburse the expenses of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TRUTH ON THE MARKET &#187; HCA Deal has &#8220;go shop&#8221; provision</title>
		<link>http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/03/27/go-shop-provisions-in-acquisitions-agreements/comment-page-1/#comment-10866</link>
		<dc:creator>TRUTH ON THE MARKET &#187; HCA Deal has &#8220;go shop&#8221; provision</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:37:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/03/27/go-shop-provisions-in-acquisitions-agreements/#comment-10866</guid>
		<description>[...] I took a quick look at the HCA merger agreement to see whether any provisions would catch my eye. One did. The agreement contains a &#8220;go shop&#8221; provision (see earlier discussion of &#8220;go shops&#8221; here). Until 11:59 p.m. (EST) on September 12, 2006, HCA is free to solicit competing bids (see Section 7.4). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I took a quick look at the HCA merger agreement to see whether any provisions would catch my eye. One did. The agreement contains a &#8220;go shop&#8221; provision (see earlier discussion of &#8220;go shops&#8221; here). Until 11:59 p.m. (EST) on September 12, 2006, HCA is free to solicit competing bids (see Section 7.4). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/03/27/go-shop-provisions-in-acquisitions-agreements/comment-page-1/#comment-963</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:53:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/03/27/go-shop-provisions-in-acquisitions-agreements/#comment-963</guid>
		<description>I haven&#039;t seen this used, but it&#039;s an interesting strategy to buy someone on the cheap (i.e., avoid prolonged bidding with the board by telling them to shop) if you were confident that no one else was out there.  Then, when no other offer emerges, both the board and buyer can justify the price (although the board might be challenged for selling the company at an unfair price).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t seen this used, but it&#8217;s an interesting strategy to buy someone on the cheap (i.e., avoid prolonged bidding with the board by telling them to shop) if you were confident that no one else was out there.  Then, when no other offer emerges, both the board and buyer can justify the price (although the board might be challenged for selling the company at an unfair price).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
