Mergers and Acquisitions in India

MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS IN INDIA
A THESIS SUBMITED
TO
THE MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF BARODA
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
MANAGEMENT STUDIES
BY
RAHUL V. VYAS
Under the supervision of

Prof. (Dr.) G. C. MAHESHWARI
Faculty of Management Studies
SEPTEMBER 2012
M. S. PATEL INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES
THE MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF BARODA
VADODARA - 390002
DECLARATION
It is hereby declared that the thesis entitled “Mergers and Acquisitions in
India” has been prepared by Rahul Vasudevbhai Vyas. The analysis, discussion and
conclusions have been drawn on the basis of the data collected by me. The thesis
presents the results of the original work. This work not been submitted to any other
university for awarding any degree or diploma.
Rahul Vasudevbhai Vyas
(Researcher)
[Prof. G. C. Maheshwari]
(Supervisor, Faculty of Management Studies)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The present study has been completed under the supervision of Prof. (Dr.) G.
C. Maheshwari, Professor in Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Management
Studies, the M. S. University of Baroda, Baroda. I am greatly obliged for his valuable
guidance in completing this study. In fact there are no words to express my gratitude
to Prof. (Dr.) G. C. Maheshwari, for the intellectual discussion, valuable suggestions,
encouragement in moulding the work in the present format. Without his personal
involvement, warmth of affection and whole hearted dedication I would not have
completed the present study. I am indeed, greatly indebted to him. I am also grateful
to Ms. Maheshwari who provided moral support like a mother.
I am also obliged to Prof. (Dr.) K. Pushpanadham, Associate Professor,
Faculty of Education and Psychology, M. S. University Baroda, Vadodara for
supportive and kind co-operation throughout the duration of the study by
accommodating my requests even at his inconvenience. I am grateful to Prof. Alla
Subba Rao, Professor, Department of Economics, M. S. University Baroda, Baroda
for clarifying and fine-tuning the statistical issues related to the study.
My sincere thanks to the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and data feed staff
members for providing required data for the study and their kind cooperation
throughout the duration of the study. I also thankful to Librarian, Shrimati Hansa
Mehta Library and Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad for permitting use of
the library throughout my work for referring valuable materials and collecting data
from various sources.
I
Last but not the least, the role of my family members has indeed been very
crucial for the successful completion of the work. I am especially thankful to my
parents, my wife, my daughter and my son for the moral support and meaningful co-
operation and every sacrifice which remained crucial for the successful completion of
the work.
Rahul Vasudevbhai Vyas
II
CONTENTS
PARTICULARS PAGE No.
Acknowledgement I
List of Tables IV
List of Figures VII
List of Abbreviation IX
CHAPTER SCHEME
1. Introduction 1
2. Mergers and Acquisitions in India 39
3. Literature Review 94
4. Legal Aspects of Mergers and Acquisitions 151
5. Wealth Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions: 206

An Event Study
6. Case Studies 262
7. Conclusion and Recommendations 351
Bibliography 365
III
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Particulars Page No.
2.1 Value of cross-border M&A by region/economy of seller, 2003-May
2011 72
2.2 Value of cross-border M&A by region/economy of purchaser, 2003-
May 2011 74
2.3 Number of cross-border M&A by region/economy of seller, 2003-
May 2011 (Number of deals) 76
2.4 Number of cross-border M&A by region/economy of purchaser, 2003-
May 2011 (Number of deals) 78
2.5 Value of Cross-Border M&A, by Sector/Industry of seller, 2003 -May
2011 (Millions of Dollars) 80
2.6 Value of Cross-Border M&A, by Sector/Industry of Purchaser, 2003 -
May 2011 (Millions of Dollars) 81
2.7 M&A By Continent 82
2.8 Years of Mergers and Acquisition 83
2.9 M&A by Number of equity shares: Offer Size 83
2.10 M&A by Percentage of equity capital: Offer Percentage 84
2.11 M&A by Price of equity shares: Offer Price 84
2.12 M&A by objective of the offer 84
2.13 M&A by Targeted post offer stake of acquisition ( Total percentage of
equity capital) 85
2.14 M&A by Continent (Price in Million) 85
IV
2.15 M&A by Industry of Acquirer/ Acquirers 86
2.16 Value of cross-border M&A of Indian economy, 2003-May 2011
(Millions of dollars) 66
3.1 Evidence from short-run event studies 134
3.2 Evidence from long-run event studies 136
3.3 What RIL shareholders will get? 126
3.4 Demerger of RIL holdings 126
4.1 Comparison of Competition Act with MRTP 168
4.2 Threshold for combined size of acquiring and target companies 159
4.3 Filing Fee 162
4.4 Timelines and fast track endevour 163
4.5 Lock-in period for special securities issued to the acquirer company 172
4.6 Sectoral cap on Investment by persons residents outside India 194
5.1 Market reaction to M&A announcements (%) for Acquirer Companies 240
5.2 Market reaction to M&A announcements (%) for Target Companies 240
5.3 Market reaction to M&A announcements (%) for Combined (Target +
Acquirer) 241
5.4 Market reaction to M&A announcements (Median) for Acquirer
Companies 241
5.5 Market reaction to M&A announcements (Median) for Target
Companies 241
5.6 Market reaction to M&A announcements (Median) for Combined
(Target + Acquirer) 242
5.7 Market reaction to M&A announcements for Acquirer companies
segmented by Indian and Foreign Companies 242
V
5.8 Market reaction to M&A announcements for Combined companies
segmented by Indian and Foreign Companies 243
5.9 Cumulative Abnormal Return Event Period (-11 to +11 days) 244
5.10 Average Abnormal Return :Event Period (-11 to +11 days) 244
5.11 Cumulative Abnormal Return: Post Estimation Period (0 to +180
days) 245
5.12 Average Abnormal Return: Post Estimation Period (0 to +180 days) 245
5.13 Cumulative Abnormal Return (%) Pre Estimation Period (0 to -180
days) 246
5.14 Average Abnormal Return (%) Pre Estimation Period (0 to -180 days) 246
5.15 Cumulative Abnormal Return: Total (+180 to -180 days) 247
5.16 Average Abnormal Return: Total (+180 to -180 days) 247
5.17 Cumulative Average Abnormal Return (%) 248
6.1 Cumulative Abnormal Returns (CAR) of RIL 281
6.2 Cumulative Abnormal Returns of L&T 282
6.3 Cumulative Abnormal Returns (CAR) of RIL and L&T 283
6.4 Summary of Major Events in L&T Takeover 284
6.5 Cumulative Abnormal Returns (CAR) of Vodafone 316
6.6 Major Events in Hutch Takeover 317
6.7 Cumulative Abnormal Returns (CAR) of Reliance Industries 342
6.8 Major Events in RIL and Bharti AXA Takeover 342
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Particulars Page No.
1.1 Process of Event selection 12
2.1 Cross-border Sales and Purchases, 2002–May 2011 46
2.2 Cross-border Sales & Purchases by Developed Economies 2002 – May
2011 50
2.3 Cross-border Sales and Purchases by Developing Economies, 2002 -
May 2011 49
2.4 M&A of Indian companies by continent during the period 2002-03 to
2010-11 56
2.5 M&A of Indian companies by continent during the period 2002-03 to
2010-11 (Excluding Indian Companies) 57
2.6 Purchases of Indian Companies by Continent and Year 61
2.7 Average equity price paid by acquiring companies in India 64
5.1 Distribution of M&A events across Industry groups 225
5.2 Illustration of the Event Study Approach 226
6.1 A simplified structure of the acquisition of Hutch by Vodafone 312
VII
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendices
Particulars Page No.
No.
1.1 List of target and acquirer companies under studied period 15
2.1 Tables of M & A
72
3.1 Tables of Event Studies
134
5.1 Tables of Market Reaction to M & A announcement
240
6.1 Board of Directors of L&T under RIL
285
6.2 Board of Director of L&T under Birla
286
6.3 Changing pattern of Shareholding in L&T during the Takeover
Attempts
287
6.4 RIL Shareholding Pattern in 2001
288
6.5 L&T Shareholding Pattern in 2001
289
6.6 Daily return data of RIL and L&T
290
6.7 Daily return data of Vodafone
318
6.8 Daily return data of RIL
343
VIII
ABBREVIATION
AR Abnormal Returns
ADR American Depositary Receipts
AMEX American Stock Exchange
AAR Average Abnormal Returns
AP Average Price
BAG Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited
BAL Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited
BEL Bharti Enterprises Limited
BoB Bank of Baroda
BOPL Bharti Overseas Private Limited
BP Bargained Price
BSE Bombay Stock Exchange
BVL Bharti Ventures Limited
CAAR Cumulative Average Abnormal Return
CAR Cumulative Abnormal Return
CCI Competition Commission of India
CDS Center for Development Studies
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CGP CGP Investments Holdings Ltd
CIS Commonwealth Independent States
CP Closing Price
CRSP Center for Research in Security Prices
EEFC Exchange Earners’ Foreign Currency
EGM Extraordinary General Meeting
IX
EMH Efficient Market Hypothesis
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FERA Foreign Exchange Regulation Act
FII Foreign Institutional Investor
FIPB Foreign Investment Promotion Board
FMGC Fast Moving Consumer Goods
FVCI Foreign Venture Capital Investors
GCPL Godrej Consumer Products Ltd
GDR Global Depositary Receipts
GFMSL Global Fuel Management Services Ltd
GIC General Insurance Corporation
GSL Godrej Soaps Limited
HEL Hutchison Essar Limited
HK Hong Kong
HLL Hindustan Lever Ltd
HTIL Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited
HWL Hutchison Whampoa Limited
ICDR Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements
IPCL Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd
IPO Initial Public Offer
IT Information Technology
ITNL IndusInd Telecom Network Ltd
KFTC Korea Fair Trade Commission
KSE Korean Stock Exchange
L&T Larsen and Toubro
LBO Leveraged Buy Out
LIC Life Insurance Corporation
X
LPG Liberalization Privatization and Globalization
M&A Mergers and Acquisitions
MD Managing Director
MNCs Multinational Corporations
MRTP Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices
NPV Net Present Value
NRI Non-Resident Indian
NSE National Stock Exchange
NTC National Textile Corporation
NYSE New York Stock Exchange
ODI Overseas Direct Investment
OL Official Liquidator
OLS Ordinary Least Squares
PAC Persons Acting in Concert
PFI Private Finance Initiative
RCLVL Reliance Capital Ventures Ltd
RCVL Reliance Communications Ventures Ltd
REVL Reliance Energy Ventures Ltd
RIL Reliance Industries Limited
RM Reverse Mergers
ROCE Return on Capital Employed
RONW Return on Net Worth
RPL Reliance Petroleum Limited
R-Power Reliance Power
RRPL Reliance Refineries Private Ltd
SAST Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers
SC Supreme Court of India
XI
SCRA Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956
SDC Securities Data Corporation
SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEC Securities and Exchange Commission
SEE & CIS South-East Europe and the CIS economies
SIA Secretariat for Industrial Assistance
TII Telecom Investments India Private Ltd
UAE United Arab Emirates
UMTL Usha Martin Telematics Ltd
UTI Unit Trust of India
VIH Vodafone International Holdings BV
XII
CHAPTER - 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Problem of the Study:
Inefficient firms are likely to be on the vendor list in the market for
corporate control with a view to provide an opportunity to management and/or
shareholders to penalize the bad management either by voting out under
performing management or unloading their shares in such companies. This
argument is based on economic efficiency and shareholder activism. Contrary
to this, there has been principal-agent theory whereby agent would like to
aggrandize and hence be involved in acquisition of other firms to enhance
benefit to the self or control enlarged resources or acquire greater marketing
power. Yet another line of argument is the synergy gain that may accrue to
either the acquiring firm or to the target or to both collectively. Since, synergy
hypothesis implies gain to acquirer shareholders but the concurrent presence
of either hubris or agency lead to inconclusive explanation of why one
company is acquired by another company. Extending synergy motive and
delineating effect of governance structure on performance, studies have been
carried out to understand whether good governance leads to wealth
maximization of shareholders of target company. The research findings remain
inconclusive. The three motives (namely agency, hubris and synergy) have
different implication for the relation between gains to target and total gains
and therefore one has to prove that higher synergy leads to higher gains to
target, if everything else remains the same. In case of Mergers and
Acquisitions (M & A) being motivated by acquirer‘s management‘s self-
interest, the dependencies of target on the acquirer‘s skills may lead to
1
decrease in value. The greater the rent seeking propensity of acquirer‘s
management, gain to shareholders shall be inversely related. The hubris
hypothesis maintains that management commits mistake in assessing gains of
M & A and therefore there are no gains to target and total gains are negative or
equal to zero. Contrary to this, number of authors has found positive relations
stating that M & A are value enhancing transactions (Firth, 1980; Malatesta,
1983; Lewellen, Loderer, and Rosenfeld, 1985; and Morck, Shleifer, and
Vishny, 1990). These findings are contradicted by Malatesta, 1983; Roll,
1986; Bradley, Desai and Kim, 1988; Shleifer and Vishny, 1989; Berkovitch
and Khanna, 1990 and Masulis, Wang and Xie, 2007. Besides, the stock
market is also believed to ensure efficient management of companies but this
is extremely difficult and has been debated in the context of hostile takeover
deals both in developed as well as emerging markets given that the
shareholders tend to reward / not to reward reflecting empire building by the
top management when synergy turns out to be a strategic mistake. Besides, the
changing regulations also affect the nature of the market and create their own
imperfections and costs. This forms the problem of the study. Thus there is a
need to study as to why Indian management indulge in M & A activities both
in Indian and foreign markets. The question to be answered is: whether
shareholders gain by M & A activity?
1.2. Rationale of the Study:
In any buying and selling transaction, a buyer always perceives higher
value of the commodity that (s)he chooses to purchase, and purchaser
considers that as the best price ever available to her/him. This is akin to
‗beauty lies in the eyes of beholder‘ and hence individual may not necessarily
act rationally as is usually believed by economists. Roll (1986), notes that
―one area of research in which this usually valid reaction of economists should
2
be abandoned; takeovers reflect individual decisions‖ (p.199). There is little
reason to refrain, in a bidding process, an individual manager since he has
learned from past errors. Besides, for a single manager, there may not
repeatable opportunity because M & A in corporate life is an episodic event.
This makes merger and takeover an area of interest because it involves besides
valuation, the human beings, technology, Research and Development (R&D)
and other intangibles. It is quite difficult to establish a causal linkage as well
as to neatly identify the source of gain and thus it remains enigmatic. Jensen
and Ruback (1983), opined that ―finally, knowledge of the source of takeover
gains still eludes us‖ (p.47). This call for understanding whether capital
market which provides disciplinary mechanism, rewards the bidder or target or
both. The present study seeks to understand as to who gains in M & A activity.
1.3. Literature Review:
Most of the researches on impact of M & A can be classified according
to whether they take a financial or industrial organization tactic. One way to
compute the performance is to monitor the share prices after the M & A
contract is struck. Empirical studies in this category point out that a target
company‘s shareholders benefit and the acquiring company‘s shareholders
generally lose (Franks & Harris, 1989). Dodd and Ruback (1977) investigated
abnormal returns around the time of a takeover announcement and found that
both the target and acquiring companies‘ shareholders secured positive and
significant profits from a successful takeover. Asquith and Kim (1982)
scrutinized returns to stock holders of target companies around the date of the
preliminary announcement or completion of a merger. They concluded that the
stockholders of target companies gained, while those of bidding companies
did not. Jensen and Ruback (1983) reviewed 13 researches on the abnormal
3
returns around takeover announcements. They concluded that the average
excess returns to target companies‘ stockholders are of 30% and 20% for the
successful M&A, respectively; while bidding companies‘ stockholders gained
an average of 4% around tender offers but no abnormal return around the
merger. Frank et al. (1991), on the other hand, found no indication to support
significant abnormal returns of acquiring companies over a three-year period
after the offer date. Agrawal et al. (1992) concluded that offering companies
lost from the acquisitions over several years but Ruback (1977), Kummer and
Hoffmeister (1978) and Dodd (1980) specified that bidding companies gained
from the acquisitions.
A further set of studies assess the impact of M & A using numerous
measures of profitability before and after M & A. This type of investigation, in
general, considers longer time prospects than the share price studies. Most of
the companies do not show significant enhancement in long term profitability
after acquisition (Scherer, 1988). There are several studies which have
concluded that conglomerate M & A present more favorable results than
horizontal and vertical M & A (Reid, 1968; Mueller, 1980). Many researchers
have studied, whether allied mergers in which the merging companies have
prospective economy of scale function better than unrelated conglomerate
mergers. Poor corporate execution in post-merger period has been attributed to
various reasons – manager's wish for position and authority, poor quality, low
productivity, voluntary turnover, reduced commitment, and allied concealed
costs and unused capability (Buono, 2003). Ghosh (2001) studied the question
of whether operating cash flow execution enhances following corporate
acquisitions, exploiting a design that accounted for superior pre-acquisition
4
performance, and found that merging companies did not illustrate evidence of
enhancements in the operating performance following acquisitions. Kruse,
Park and Suzuki (2003) studied the long-term operating performance of
Japanese companies using a sample of 56 mergers of manufacturing
companies in the period 1969 to 1997. By analyzing the cash-flow for the five-
year period following mergers, the study found evidence of enhancements in
operating performance, and also noted that the pre and post-merger
performance was highly correlated. The study concluded that control company
adjusted long-term operating performance following mergers in case of
Japanese companies was positive but insignificant and there was a high
correlation between pre and post-merger performance. Marina, Sjoerd and
Renneboog (2007) examined the long-term success of corporate takeovers in
Europe, and concluded that both acquiring and target companies significantly
outperformed the median peers in their industry preceding the takeovers, but
the profitability of the combined company declined significantly subsequent to
the takeover. However, the decline became irrelevant after controlling for the
performance of the control sample of peer companies.
Early examination addressing expectation in offering activities focuses
on programmme offers and reports mixed outcomes. Programmme offers are
acquisition agendas declared by a particular company. Schipper and
Thompson (1983), Malatesta and Thompson (1985), and Loderer and Martin
(1990) concluded that additional offers of a company are anticipated at the
time their acquisition programme is declared. Alternatively, Asquith, Bruner,
and Mullins (1983) found that offering companies earn significantly positive
returns for each of their first four offers. Fuller, Netter, and Stegemoller
5
(2002) concluded that during the 1990‘s the sequence of the acquisitions does
not affect excess returns to frequent acquirers. Similarly, Conn, Cosh, Guest,
and Hughes (2004) concluded that returns from U.K. acquirers declaring
multiple offers are similar to those from single acquirers. In contrast, Billett
and Qian (2008) stated that acquirers of subsequent and higher order contracts
experience significantly more negative returns and attribute this outcome to
management overconfidence. Song and Walkling (2000) found that
competitors of target companies experience simultaneously positive abnormal
returns to the degree that they are likely to be targeted themselves.
The belief of M & A anticipation is connected to (but dissimilar from)
the evidence that acquisitions cluster by industry. Mitchell and Mulherin
(1996) stated clustering for target companies. At the industry level, 50% of the
targets they scrutinized over the 1982-89 period are concentrated in 25% of
the years. Andrade and Stafford (2004) presented initial evidence that
clustering occurs for acquirers. Harford (2005) opined that the industry merger
wave is a well-organized response to industry-specific upsets. On average, M
& A happening trough waves are connected with significantly positive wealth
gains; mergers in the similar industry, but outside the wave period do not
generate wealth. Akbulut and Matsusaka (2003) accounted that the means and
medians of combined target and acquirer returns for diversifying acquisitions
are significantly positive through waves and insignificantly dissimilar from
zero outside of the waves. Mean and median offering company returns are
insignificantly negative both inside and outside of waves.
Travlos and Papaioannou (1991) examined the influence of method of
payment on offering companies‘ stock return at the initial announcement of
6
takeover offers. They concluded that the abnormal returns of offering
companies on the announcement day were -1.3% for stock exchange and
-0.8% for cash offers. Suk and Sung (1997) looked at the results of method of
payment, form of acquisition and type of offer on target companies‘ abnormal
returns around the takeover announcement. They concluded that there was no
difference in premiums between a stock offers and cash offers. Chang (1998)
examined bidder returns at the announcement of a takeover proposal when
target firms were privately held. He indicated that bidders experienced no
abnormal return in cash offers but a positive abnormal return in stock offers.
The supervising activities and information asymmetries were grounds for a
positive wealth effect. Knapp (2006) concluded that post-merger abnormal
return of bank related companies was significantly larger as compared with the
industry mean in the first 5 years after a merger. Al-Sharkas et al (2008)
illustrated that mergers could improve the cost and profit efficiencies of banks
and provided an economic rationale for future mergers in the banking industry.
Kumar and Panneerselvam (2009) examined the effect of M & A on
the wealth of shareholders of acquirer and target companies in the context of
India. The findings revealed that average announcement day excess returns
was found to be highest for target companies involved in mergers, followed by
acquirer companies involved in mergers. Kumar and Ashok (2010) analyzed
the impact of media announcement of different events on the stock market.
This study focused on the same set of companies which were involved in
different events at different period of time. They opined that dividend
announcements resulted in maximum wealth creation in all the event
windows. Events like public issue and takeover announcement also registered
positive cumulative abnormal returns with statistical significance in some of
the time window period while overall stock market reaction to announcement
of events like bonus issue, mergers, and right issue noticed negative
7
cumulative abnormal returns in different time window. However, Padmavathy
and Ashok (2012) concluded that the impact of the announcement of merger
did not hold any significant difference on the movement of the share price and
no significant abnormal return is gained during 21 days event window by
acquiring firms‘ shareholders. Hence, the study concluded that a merger did
not hold important information to Indian stock market during the study period.
1.4. Objectives of the Study:
As a consequence of Indian economic liberalization, and rapidly
transforming business environment, there has been significant M & A activity
in India. This gives rise to issues as to why management involves in M & A
activities which need to be investigated. To seek resolution of the issue
following objectives have been formulated for this study.
Describe the market for corporate control with a view to highlight the
changes in regulatory environment;
To expound if the companies concerned in India experience abnormal
returns around M & A announcement period;
Determine whether abnormal returns of target firms are significantly
different from abnormal returns of acquiring companies; and
Compare abnormal returns experienced by Indian acquirer versus foreign
acquirer.
Specifically, following questions need investigation:
Is it being used as an endurance strategy by Indian enterprises in view of

the growing existence of foreign enterprises in the post 1991 period?
8
Is there some noticeable trend of M & A in the different sectors of the
Indian industry?
Who gained and who lost in the M & A game?
Do these mergers or acquisitions really enhance the value of shareholders
wealth?
Is there an unexpected spurt in M & A events in India in post
liberalization?
1.5 Research Methodology:
1.5.1. Period of the Study: The study covers a period of 9 years from April, 2002 to
March, 2011. This period was taken into consideration on account of two
reasons. Firstly, prior to year 2002-03, M & A events involving unrelated
private sector companies were few in number and data on them was not
readily available. Secondly, the Indian market did not have the required
strength and institutional distinctiveness for meaningful event study analysis
until the transformations that gave constitutional status to SEBI in 1992 and
Competition Commission of India (CCI) came into existence in January 2003.
1.5.2. Sample: Total 802 M & A transactions were registered with Securities and
Exchange Board of India (SEBI) during April-2002 to March 2011. The
sample is selected based on the following considerations:
The shares of both the acquirer and the target were traded on the Bombay
Stock Exchange (BSE) or the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE);
and
Sufficient daily stock return data was available to estimate the market
model.
128 companies were registered with respective stock exchanges in India or
Abroad, 12 companies were registered with stock exchanges, but no stock
price data was available for companies or data was available for less than 30
9
trading days and hence, dropped from the sample. Thus, final sample included
116 companies of which 80 were Indian and 36 overseas companies, some of
the acquiring companies were involved in multiple acquisitions.
1.5.3. Sources of Data: The data needed for the study have been collected from the
Economic Times, other financial dailies and acquisition filings with SEBI. For
the selected companies, pre and post-merger equity prices were obtained from
the daily quotations of companies listed on BSE, NSE and Yahoo Finance
database for the period + 180 days of M & A.
1.5.4. Selection of Event Date: Selecting relevant event date is very crucial in event
study and is by and large based on the motivation of the study. For instance to
test the competency of stock market reaction to the announcement of M & A,
the event should be centered on the date of the merger announcement
(Halpern, 1973). Whereas the benefits of the merger to acquiring companies
are likely to be reflected in stock values around the time when an acquisition
programme is started (Schipper and Thompson, 1983). The event date
considered in this study is the date of M & A registered by SEBI as it is
mandatory to disclose M & A transactions. It is considered as authentic
information of M & A available in market. Events can occur in different
calendar days for different securities. Event date is defined day ‗0‘ as the day
in which the company has been assigned an event. For each security used a
maximum of 361 daily return observations for the period around its respective
event, i.e. -180 days to +180 days.
10
1.5.5. Techniques of Analysis: The data collected was processed for event study
methodology and wealth maximization effect was captured by comparing the
abnormal returns, average abnormal returns and cumulative abnormal returns
during pre and post acquisitions period. The student t-test has been used to
test the significances of results estimated through Ordinary Least Squares
(OLS) market model.
1.5.6. Return form:
OLS market model, which indicates a linear relationship between security
returns and returns on a market portfolio is given in equation (1):
……………………………………………............ (1)
Where
Rit = the daily rate of return on security i on day t
Rmt = the daily rate on market index on day t,
Βi= a covariance between Rit and Rmt divided by variance of Rmt
αi= expected value of (Ri - βjBm), and
µjt = model error term of security j on day t, with expected value equal
to zero
Abnormal Return (AR): It is defined as the difference between the actual
returns on a security i and its expected return. Therefore, the abnormal return
of a security ‗i' at time ‗t‘ is as given in equation (2)
ARit= Rit- (αi+ βiRmt)……………………………………………………… (2)
11
Where,
ARit= Abnormal return for the ‗ith‘ company at time ‗t‘,
αi and βi = OLS parameter estimates obtained from regression of Rit on
Rmt for the estimation period.
Cumulative Abnormal Return (CAR): The CAR for security ‗i' is the sum
of abnormal returns in a given time period [t0, t1] is defined as equation (3).
...................................................................... (3)
Average Abnormal Return (AAR): The AAR at time t, ARt, is the arithmetic
mean of n securities is defined as in equation (4)
………………………………………... (4)
Causal effect of value erosion will be estimated by a system of equations to
estimate the parameter and co-efficient of regression equation.
Event Study Analysis: An event study attempts to measure the valuation
effects of a corporate event, such as a mergers or earnings announcement, by
examining the response of the stock price around the announcement of the
event. One underlying assumption is that the market processes information
about the event in an efficient and unbiased manner. The time line applied for
an event study is shown below:
12
Where,
a) T0, represents the date of announcement of event;
b) P1, represents the pre-event period, expanding from T-1 to T0;
c) P2, represents the event period skirling, from T0 to T+1;
d) P3, represents the interim period, expanding from T+1 to T+2;
e) P4, represents the post outcome period, expanding from T+2 to T+3.
The trading days before the event date are assigned with minus sign (-) i.e. -1,
-2, -3,…-180 and trading days after the event date are assigned with plus sign
(+) as +1, +2,+3,…+180 days
1.6 Plan of the study:
In addition to the present chapter, the study spans over six other
chapters. Chapter two provides an overview of worldwide state of affairs of
cross-border M & A. It also provides analysis of M & A in India and overview
of Indian state of affairs in cross-border sales and purchases. Chapter three
reviews the literature concerning M & A studies carried out in the USA, UK,
Europe, and South East Asia.
Chapter four present legal aspects of M & A in the context of extant
Law and Competition Commission of India (CCI) set up in 2003. It also
presents comparison of Competition Act, 2002 with the Monopolies and
Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP) and other applicable legal
provision in case of M & A.
13
Chapter five seeks to unravel the mystery that M & A activities does
really create wealth or takeover and acquisitions are propelled by the hubris
working with management of bidder companies.
Chapter six presents‘ case studies of Larsen and Toubro (L&T) take
over by Reliance Industries (RIL) in 1988, Vodafone‘s acquisition of Hutch in
2007 and first case of Merger of RIL and Bharti AXA Life Insurance Ltd.,
cleared by CCI. It highlights the role played by different market participants in
shaping the tactical and strategic decisions of the target and acquirer.
Last chapter presents the summary of the findings of the study and
offers the recommendations for making market for corporate control more
proficient and well-organized in India.
14
1.1. Appendix
List of target and acquirer companies under studied period
SR. TARGET COMPANY ACQUIRER/(S)
1 RATNABALI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD VIKASH SOMANI, SURESH KUMAR SOMANI, JAISHREE SOMAN
2 SOLVAY PHARMA INDIA LTD. ABBOTT CAPITAL INDIA LTD
3 ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LTD. SAMARA CAPITAL PARTNERS FUND I LIMITED
4 MULTIFARIOUS TRADING & AGENCIES LIMITED KERNEL TECH NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED
5 CALIFORNIA SOFTWARE CO LTD SINGFUEL INVESTMENT PTE. LTD
6 NAHAR CAPITAL AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED
7 CEEKAY DAIKIN LTD EXEDY
8 BHILWARA SPINNERS LTD. AHINSA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS LTD
9 CRONIMET ALLOYS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GMR FERRO ALLOYS & INDUSTRIES LTD.) ATLANTA NATURAL RESOURCES PTE LTD
10 IPOWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD RAM N. RAMAMURTHY
11 PIPAVAV SHIPYARD LIMITED (New Name: Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Company) SKIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMTED & SKIL SHIPYARD HOLDING
12 CHAMAK HOLDINGS LTD Mr. Subhash Chander Kathuria and Mr. Anubhav Kathuria (BEETAL FINANCIAL & COMPUTER
SERVICES PVT.LIMITED)
13 SIGNET INDUSTRIES LIMITED MUKESH SANGLA, SAURABH SANGLA, MONIKA SANGLA, Avantika Sangla, Adroit Industries (India)
Limited (“AIL”), and Shri Balaji Starch & Chemicals Limited (“SBSCL”)
14 LANCING INVESTMENT LIMITED, THE RITMAN CONCRETE PRIVATE LIMITED, RITMAN COMMERCIAL
15 RAJDHANI LEASING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. MR SANJAY JAIN, MR RAJIV JAIN
16 SANJAY LEASING LIMITED MR. KETAN KOTHARI, MRS. MOHINIDEVI KOTHARI AND ORS
17 PENNAR INDUSTRIES LTD. EIGHT CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD & SPINNAKER FUNDS
18 ABB LIMITED ABB ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD
19 DJS STOCK AND SHARES LIMITED B.K. DYEING & PRINTING MILLS LIMITED
20 APTE AMALGAMATIONS LIMITED JAYDEEP VINOD MEHTA, NIKHIL VINOD MEHTA, JASHWANT
21 GMR INDUSTRIES LIMITED E.I.D.PARRY INDIA LIMITED
22 AGC NETWORKS LIMITED(FORMERLY TATA TELECOM LIMITED) ESSAR CAPITAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED
23 DEEVEE COMMERCIAL LIMITED New Way Constructions Limited, EPL Securities Limited, Karan Business Private Limited, Zen
Business Private Limited, Sneha Enclave Private Limited, Sneha Niketan Private Limited
Sneha Abasan Private Limited; and
Sneha Gardens Private Limited (MAHESHWARI DATAMATICS PVT LTD)
24 KAASHYAP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED TAIB SECURITIES MAURITIUS LIMITED

25 ZENOTECH LABORATORIES LIMITED DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LIMITED
26 SHREE SPONGE STEEL AND FORGING LTD VINAYKUMAR PURSHOTTAMDAS PARIKH, PURSHOTTAMDAS
27 HOWARD HOTELS LIMITED NIRANKAR NATH MITTAL, NIRVIKAR NATH MITTAL,
28 GOLDEN LEGAND LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED MR. ULLASH PARIKH
29 SUCHITRA FINANCE AND TRADING COMPANY LTD MARIGOLD INVESTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED
30 VYBRA AUTOMET LIMITED VILAS VITTHAL VALUNJ
15
31 KIDDERPORE HOLDINGS LIMITED Adinath Builders Private Limited (SHAREX DYNAMIC (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD)
32 PREMIER CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED MR.MANOJ KASLIWAL
33 ONTRACK SYSTEMS LIMITED B.HARI, R.P.INFOSYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED
34 ZENZY TECHNOCRATS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BOMBAY POLYMERS LIMITED) SINGHAL MERCHANDISE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
35 MONOTYPE INDIA LIMITED PRISM IMPEX PVT. LTD, SUSHIL KUMAR KHAITAN
36 SPICEJET LIMITED KAL AIRWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, KALANITHI MARAN,
37 IAG COMPANY LTD (FORMERLY THE INDO ASAHI GLASS COMPANY LIMITED) ANJANIPUTRA ISPAT LIMITED
38 GENUS PRIME INFRA LIMITED GENUS PAPER PRODUCTS LIMITED
39 KALE CONSULTANTS LIMITED ACCELYA HOLDING WORLD S.L
40 SAYAJI INDUSTRIES LTD MRS.SUJATA PRIYAM MEHTA,PCEPL & BCEPL
41 AREVA T & D INDIA LIMITED ALSTOM SEXTANT 5,LONG & CRAWFORD LTD,AREVA T&DSAS
42 EVERONN EDUCATION LIMITED SKIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, SKIL KNOWLEDGE CITIES
43 POLYGENTA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ALPHAPET LTD, ALOE ENVIRONMENT FUND II FCPR
44 STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS (INDIA) LTD BAY CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LTD, INDIA DISCOVERY FUND
45 TECHTRAN POLYLENSES LIMITED CREDENCE INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED
46 VIMAL OIL & FOODS LIMITED CHANDUBHAI I.PATEL, PRADIP C.PATEL, KANTABEN PATEL
47 MARUTI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD NIMESH PATEL
48 SURANA INDUSTRIES LTD G.R.SURANA, SHANTILAL SURANA,VIJAYRAJ SURANA
49 SHARP TRADING AND FINANCE LIMITED BABULAL,BAJRANGBALI VARMA,KAMALKISHORE GUPTA
50 NAHAR POLY FILMS LIMITED NAHAR SPINNING MILLS LIMITED
51 VOLTAIRE LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED MADHURI DAMANI
52 BELL CERAMICS LIMITED OCIL,MAHENDRA K DAGA,SARIA DAGA,FITL,MGLF
53 AMULYA LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED MR.SAMEER GUPTA
54 AMTEK INDIA LIMITED. AMTEK AUTO LIMITED (BEETAL FINANCIAL & COMPUTER SERVICES PVT LTD)
55 SAYAJI HOTELS LTD CLEARWATER CAPITAL PARTNERS (CYPRUS) LTD
56 MIPCO SEAMLESS RINGS (GUJARAT) LTD SACHENDRA TUMMALA
57 JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED
58 SULABH ENGINEERS AND SERVICES LIMITED MR.MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL & MRS.DEEPA MITTAL, SKYLINE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD
59 P.M.STRIPS LIMITED (8K MILES SOFTWARE SERVICES LIMITED (“8KMSL”)) SURESH VENKATACHARI, M.V.BHASKAR
60 CAPMAN FINANCIALS LTD RAMESH K.BODRA, JAGDISH K.BODRA, MAFATBHAI D.SIROY
61 THYROCARE LABORATORIES LIMITED SANJAY N.SALUNKHE
62 FAME INDIA LIMITED RELIANCE MEDIAWORKS LIMITED
63 FAME INDIA LIMITED INOX LEISURE LIMITED, GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD
64 ASSOCIATED CEREALS LIMITED ULTRAPLUS HOUSING ESTATE PVT.LTD
65 INTERLINK PETROLEUM LIMITED SIM SIANG CHOON LIMITED
66 RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LIMITED RHC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED
16
67 WHITE DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LIMITED SAPNA INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED, SAPNA INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED
68 AVIVA INDUSTRIES LIMITED MR.BHARVIN S.PATEL & MAHESH M. PATEL
69 RADIX INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED GOKARAJU RAGHU RAMA RAJU, GANAPATHI RAMA PRABHAKAR
70 SUAVE HOTELS LIMITED KAMAL PODDAR,ANIL&VINITA PATODIA,HOTEL RELAX P LTD
71 SYNCOM FORMULATIONS (INDIA) LTD. KEDARMAL BANKDA, VIJAY BANKDA, VIMLA BANKDA
72 SHYAM STAR GEMS LIMITED SWARNSARITA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LTD
73 COIMBATORE FLAVORS AND FRAGRANCES LIMITED BENNY ABRAHAM
74 SCHLAFHORST ENGINEERING (INDIA) LTD. INTEGRA HOLDING AG
75 PIONEER DISTILLERIES LTD UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED
76 PARASNATH TEXTILES LIMITED LUHARUKA SALES AND SERVICES PVT.LTD
77 DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED WEALTH SEA PTE LTD. &MANALI PROPERTIES&FINANCE P L
78 FARRY INDUSTRIES LIMITED OBIKE TRADING PRIVATE LTD, TIEN TRADING PVT.LTD
79 ESSEN SUPPLEMENTS INDIA LTD GANESH KUMAR SINGHANIA, ANITA SINGHANIA
80 STI INDIA LIMITED BOMBAY RAYON FASHIONS LTD
81 EDUEXEL INFOTAINMENT LIMITED DISCOVERY INFOWAYS LIMITED
82 JYOTHI INFRAVENTURES LIMITED MRS TAMMINEEDI SAILAJA
83 BIO WHITEGOLD INDUSTRIES LTD. STERLITE INFOTECH LTD, TUFF TUBES PVT.LTD & OTHERS
84 VISISTH MERCANTILE LTD RAHUL SHAH, DSR INFOTECH PVT.LTD
85 MARATHWADA REFRACTORIES LTD. MR.SUSHIL PANDURANG MANTRI
86 SURYA ROSHNI LTD. JAI PRAKASH AGARWAL, LUSTRE MERCHANTS(P)LTD, SCPL
87 KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LIMITED M/S PADMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED
88 RESIDENCY PROJECTS AND INFRATECH LIMITED VALUEMART RETAIL INDIA LIMITED
89 LLOYDS STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED SHREE GLOBAL TRADEFIN LTD, TRUMP INVESTMENTS LTD
90 D .D. LEASING LIMITED RAJIV,TANISHA & KUNAL GAMBHIR,RENU CHADDA,MLFPL
91 GOMTI FINLEASE (I) LTD CHIRANIA TRADING PVT.LIMITED, CHIRANIA TRADING PVT LTD
92 THE ANANDAM RUBBER COMPANY LTD NIREJ V.PAUL,V.M.PAULOSE,T.J.LEELAMMA AND OTHERS
93 CONFIDENCE TRADING COMPANY LTD TARANYA PROJECT PVT.LIMITED
94 ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD JSW STEEL LIMITED
95 GAGAN POLYCOT INDIA LIMITED LIEN TRADING PRIVATE LTD
96 THE ETHELBARI TEA COMPANY (1932) LTD JASHBHAI PATEL & SONS HUF, KANTABEN PATEL & OTHERS
97 SUBWAY FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. AJS ENTERPRISES LLP, AJS NIRMAN LLP
98 RAMMAICA INDIA LIMITED KYNER TRADING PVT.LTD & TIEN TRADING PVT.LTD
99 SIEMENS LIMITED SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
100 PERFECT-OCTAVE MEDIA PROJECTS LTD RATISH TAGDE, RAJEEV BENGALI & RAGA CAFE PVT. LTD
101 MAYTAS INFRA LTD SBG PROJECTS INVESTMENTS LTD
102 INDO TECH TRANSFORMERS LIMITED PROLEC-GE INTERNACIONAL, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.
103 BHAGYASHREE LEASING AND FINANCE LTD MR VIMALKUMAR JAIN, MR KK JAIN, MS RANJANA & OTHER
17
104 GROB TEA COMPANY LTD RAWALWASLA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., STRIP COMMODEAL PVT LTD.
105 RANE BRAKE LININGS LTD NISSHINBO INDUSTRIES INC AND OTHERS
106 FEM CARE PHARMA LIMITED (FORMERLY FEM CARE PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED) DABUR INDIA LIMITED
107 CONTINENTAL VALVES LTD RASHMI CHOWDHARY W/O UMESH CHOWDHARY
108 BOMBAY RAYON FASHIONS LTD AAA UNITED B.V.
109 NOVARTIS INDIA LTD NOVARTIS AG
110 FALCON TYRES LTD WEALTH SEA PTE LTD. & MANALI PROPERTIES & FIN. PVT
111 GMR FERRO ALLOYS & INDUSTRIES LTD. CRONIMET MERCON INVEST LTD.
112 CIBA INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY CIBA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS (INDIA) LTD) BASF SE, BASF HANDELS (PAC)
113 SPICE MOBILES LTD. FORMERLY SPICE NET LIMITED/ MODI OLIVETTI LTD.) SPICE TELEVENTURES PVT LTD.
114 SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. (New Name:Mahindra Satyam) VENTURBAY CONSULTANTS PVT LTD., TECH MAHINDRA
115 PFIZER LIMITED PFIZER INVESTMENTS NETHERLANDS BV, PFIZER INC (PAC
116 CORE EMBALLAGE LTD ZAVERILAL V MANDLIA, S/O VIRJIBHAI H MANDALIA
117 ZENOTECH LABORATORIES LIMITED DAICHII SANKYO COMPANY LTD.
118 WOO YANG ELECTRONICS (INDIA) LTD M/S PICTURE THOUGHTS PVT LTD.
119 ANIL PRODUCTS LTD BHARTI CONSUMER MARKETING PVT LTD AND OTHERS
120 NIVEDITA MERCANTILE & FINANCING LTD ESKAY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD
121 SHAILY ENGINEERING PLASTICS LTD MOTIKA LTD
122 ANUKARAN COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD MR PREMAL S PAREKH & OTHERS
123 CONFIDENCE TRADING COMPANY LTD MR SURESH KUMAR SOMANI
124 LALIT POLYMERS AND ELECTRONICS LTD B S TRADERS PVT LTD AND ALOK FINTRADE PVT LTD
125 SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD / (SHRIRAM HIRE PURCHASE FINANCE PRIVATE LTD TPG INDIA INVESTMENTS (TPG) AND OTHER PAC
126 DISA INDIA LTD HAMLET
127 SINCLAIRS HOTELS LTD XANDER INVESTMENT HOLDING
128 CCAP LTF (FORMERLY CENTRAL CONCRETE & ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD) RAMAYANA PROMOTERS PVT LTD
129 KOLMAK CHEMICALS LTD SHRI S SUKUMAR AND SMT S KALAIYARASI
130 CAPITAL TRUST LTD. I C CINSTRUCTION & SERVICES LTD
131 ESSEN SUPPLEMENTS INDIA LTD SHRI GANESH KUMAR SINGHANIA AND SMT. ANITA SINGHAN
132 PRISM INFORMATICS LIMITED (FORMERLY AAKRUTI HOLDINGS LTD) IDHASOFT LTD
133 VISHAL COTSPIN LIMITED MR. DEEPAK CHHEDA
134 INDO ZINC LIMITED ICL Financial Services Limited with The Indian Cements Limited
135 KAPIL COTEX LTD MR. PRAKASH CHANDRA RATHI AND MRS. POONAM P RATHI
136 MAN ALUMINIUM LTD. MR RAVINDER NATH JAIN & MR MOHINDER JAIN & PACS
137 BLUECHIP STOCKSPIN LTD. MR. JIGNESH HIRAL SHAH
138 TILAK FINANCE LIMITED HANDFUL INVESTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED
139 FINAVENTURE CAPITAL LTD KANNAN VISHWANATH
140 OCL IRON & STEEL LTD GARIMA BUILDPROP PVT LTD., GATEWAY IMPEX PVT LTD
141 YAMUNA SYNDICATE LTD. Mr.RANJIT PURI & Mr.ADITYA PURI
18
142 KALPENA PLASTIKS LIMITED (FORMERLY SARLA GEMS LIMITED) TARA HOLDINGS PVT; KALPENA INDS LTD.
143 MAYTAS INFRA LTD IL&FS
144 MATHEW EASOW RESEARCH SECURITIES LIMITED VISTA VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED
145 JALGAON RE-ROLLING INDUSTRIES LTD. SHRI SHANKARRO A BORKAR, SMT. SUNANDA S BORKAR & SHRI AMOL S BORKAR
146 GREAT OFFSHORE LTD. NATURAL POWER VENTURES PVT LTD. & PACS
147 GREAT OFFSHORE LTD. ELEVENTH LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ABG SHIPYARD LT
148 SAYAJI INDUSTRIES LTD Mr. PRIYAM BIPIN MEHTA and Mrs. SUJATA PRIYAM MEHTA
149 WIRES AND FABRIKS (S.A.) LIMITED BKM MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED
150 KIC METALIKS LIMITED (FORMERLY KAJARIA IRON CASTINGS LTD) KARNI SYNTEX PVT LTD
151 VYBRA AUTOMET LIMITED MANDAKINI HOLDINGS PVT LTD.
152 VARDHMAN HOLDINGS LIMITED PRADEEP MERCANTILE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED
153 VULCAN ENGINEERS LTD TERRUZZI FERCALX SPA
154 BLUE CIRCLE SERVICES LTD. M/s PRIME CAPITAL MARKET LTD.
155 OJSWI TRADES INVESTMENT AND FINANCE LIMITED SANDEEP GARG, SHASHI VERMA
156 ZENU INFOTECH LIMITED (FORMERLY PRITI RESORTS & HOLDINGS LTD.) (FORMERLY PRITI WATER AND CHOICE INTERNATIONL LIMITED
MINERALS PVT LTD.)
157 UTTAM GALVA STEELS LTD ARCELORMITTAL NETHERLANDS B.V.
158 HASTI FINANCE LIMITED Mr. Nitin Prabhudas Somani and Mrs. Sonal Nitin Somani
159 SURANA INDUSTRIES LTD. G R SURANA, MR DINESHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS
160 SQL STAR INTERNATIONAL LTD. SUPERSTAR EXPORTS PVT LTD. & PACS, KANISHKDEEP STOCK CONSULTANTS/SUNIL GUPTA (PACS)
161 WALL STREET FINANCE LTD SPICE INVESTMENTS & FINANCE ADVISORS PRIVATE LTD.
162 TILAKNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD Amit Dahunukar & Shivani Amit Dahunukar & other PACs
163 MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED Welspun Infratech Limited
164 OMEGA INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES LTD SMT RENU SONI & SMT KANCHAN SONI
165 FRONTIER LEASING & FINANCE LTD ESSAR CAPITAL FINANCE PVT LTD
166 SHREE OM TRADES LIMITED MR DEVENDRA KUMAR SOMANI, TARUN KUMAR SOMANI
167 GOLECHHA GLOBAL FINANCE LTD ADVANI PRIAVATE LTD
168 HIMADRI CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD BAIN CAPITAL INDIA INVESTMENTS
169 GENESYS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD SOHEIL MALIK
170 AGRO DUTCH INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY AGRO DUTCH FOODS LTD) MR MALVINDER SINGH BHINDER, GURPREET SINGH BHINDER, PENTA HOMES PVT LTD., VISHWA
CALIBRE BUILDERS (PAC
171 BALASHRI COMMERCIAL LTD JEWEL SHELTERS PVT LTD

172 STAR LEASING LTD (STAR LEASING COMPANY LTD) (New Name:Remidicherla Infra & Power) MR. M SRINIVASA REDDY
173 SHAKTI MET-DOR LIMITED MR M V S S SUBBA RAJU, MRS M UMA RAJU & OTHERS/PAC, MR M V S S SUBBA RAJU
174 SAMPADA CHEMICALS LTD SHYAM ALCOHOL AND CHEMICALS LIMITED

175 SCENARIO MEDIA LTD SCENARIO COMMUNICATION LTD.
176 DRILLCO METAL CARBIDES LTD. MR RAHUL TIMBADIA
177 DPSC LTD. ORBIS POWER VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
19
178 SHREE PACETRONIX LTD. DR.MATHEW S KALARICKAL, MR D SINGH (PAC)
179 7SEAS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (FORMERLY FLAIR INVESTMENT AND FINANCE LTD) MEENU BHANSALI
180 UNIVERSAL PRINT SYSTEMS LTD MANIPAL PRESS LIMITED
181 INFOMEDIA INDIA LTD / (COMMERCIAL PRINTING PRESS LTD/ TATA PRESS LTD /TATA DONNELLEY LTD/TATA TELEVISION EIGHTEEN INDIA LTD
INFOMEDIA LTD)
182 SEAHORSE HOSPITALS LTD SRI KAVERY MEDICAL CARE (TRICHY) PVT LTD.
183 YOGI SUNGWON (INDIA) LTD MR LOKESH KAPOOR, MR PALANETRA BHARATH
184 ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD (FORMERLY ERA CONSTRUCTIONS (I) LTD) ERA HOUSING & DEVELOPERS (INDIA) LTD & PACS
185 A.V. COTTEX LTD. SUDHIR M NAHETA, RAJKUMARI S NAHETA
186 SUNIL HEALTHCARE LIMITED MR SUNIL KUMAR KHAITAN & PACS
187 CHROMATIC INDIA LIMITED CHEETAH MULTITRADE PRIVATE LTD
188 CHANNEL GUIDE INDIA LIMITED MR RAJENDRA SHARAD KARNIK
189 HATSUN AGRO PRODUCT LTD R G CHANDRAMOGAN & PACS
190 ROHIT PULP & PAPER MILLS LTD MARATHON REALTY LTD, CHETAN R SHAH & MAYTUR SHAH
191 KLG CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. AWAITA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.
192 CALIFORNIA SOFTWARE CO LTD KEMOIL LIMITED
193 FUSION FITTINGS (INDIA) LIMITED EXPERIENCED HI-TECH CONSULTANCY SEVICES PVT LTD
194 STOVEC INDUSTRIES LTD STORK PRINTS GROUP B.V. & PACS
195 THOMAS COOK INDIA LTD (THOMAS COOK (INDIA) PVT LTD) THOMAS COOK UK LIMITED
196 FLAT PRODUCTS EQUIPMENTS (I) LTD. COCKERILL MAINTENANCE & INGENIERIE SA
197 HIRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD. HIRA INDUSTRIES LIMITED
198 DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD HB STOCK HOLDINGS LIMITED
199 ADVANI HOTELS & RESORTS (INDIA) LTD FASTRACK IMPEX PRIVATE LTD
200 NEW DELHI TELEVISION LIMITED DR PRANNOY ROY & MRS RADHIKA ROY & PAC
201 K G DENIM LTD K G BALAKRISHNAN, B SRIRAMULU & PACS
202 RASHMI COMMERCIAL COMPANY LTD SHRI BASANT KUMAR ALMAL & PACS
203 JAMIRAH TEA COMPANY LTD. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD.
204 CHOKSHI INFOTECH LIMITED (New Name:Ajel Infotech) ARIKATLA SRINIVASA REDDY
205 NEHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. MR G VINOD REDDY, DR. G DEEPTHI REDDY (PAC)
206 BOC INDIA LIMITED THE BOC GROUP PLC
207 SPARSH BPO SERVICES LIMITED SKR BPO SERVICES PRIVIATE LTD & PACS
208 STERLITE PROJECTS LIMITED (new Name: B&B Realty Ltd) SHRI GAUVRAM KUMAR BHANDARI
209 ROSELABS FINANCE LIMITED POONAM FAST FOODS PRIVATE LTD
210 VERTEX SECURITIES LIMITED TRANSWARRANTY FINANCE LTD
211 GUJARAT FOILS LTD ABHAY NARENDRA LODHA & PACS
212 ALKYL AMINES CHEMICALS LTD MR SUNEET KOTHAIR, M/S NINI KOTHARI, YMK TRADING, SYK TRADING, ANJYKO INVSTMNTSL
NIYOKO TRADING
213 BRILLIANT SECURITIES LTD MR REDDY, UMA, V MR/MRS MEENAVALLI, KBR HOLDINGS
214 PETRON ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION LIMITED KAZSTROYSERVICE PLC
215 DABUR PHARMA INDIA LTD. FRESENIUS KABI (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD., FRESENIUS KABI AUSTRIA GMBH; FRESENIUS SE
216 UNIFLEX CABLES LIMITED APAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED

217 HANSU CONTROLS LTD. MR CHANDRASHEKHAR R GUPTA, RAMASHREY J GUPTA
20
218 AZTECSOFT LTD. MINDTREE LTD.
219 ANAND LEASE AND FINANCE LTD. MR JAYESH, PRANAY, PRAKASH, SANDIP PATEL
220 CAMPHOR AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD. ORIENTAL AROMATICS LTD. (ORIENTAL)
221 INDO GREEN PROJECTS LTD (New Name: IITL Projects) INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED
222 BHANDARI HOSIERY EXPORTS LTD. MR NITIN BHANDAR, MS NITIKA BHANDARI
223 HINDUSTAN OIL EXPLORATION CO. LTD. ENI UK HOLDING PLC, ENI SPAL BURREN ENERGY IND LTD, BURREN SHAKTI LTD.,
224 NEELKANTH TECHNOLOGIES LTD. PREET REMEDIES PVT LTD.

225 JPT SECURITIES LTD. AWAITA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.
226 BASF INDIA LTD BASF SE
227 MANOJ HOUSING FINACE COMPANY LIMITED MR MAHESH NARSIHBHAI PUJARA & PACS
228 IL&FS INVESTSMART LTD. HSBC SECURITIES & CAPITAL MKTS (INDIA) PVT LTD., HSBC VIOLET INVESTMENTS (MAURITIUS) LTD.
& PACS
229 ASHIANA AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. M/S SERENGETI HOLDINGS PVT LTD.
230 CHOICE INTERNATIONAL LTD SHRI SUNIL,VINITA, SHRI CHOTHMAL PATODIA
231 MAFATLAL FINANCE COMPANY LTD. MR NANDKISHORE DIVATE
232 BROADCAST INITIATIVES LTD. (FORMERLY SRI ADHIKARI BROTHERS TELEVISION NETWORK LTD) HDIL INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD., RAKESH,SARANG WADHAW
233 INTERLINK PETROLEUM LTD. JIT SIN INVESTMENTS PTE LTD., VIJAY MISHRA & PACS
234 SAYAJI IRON & ENG. CO LTD. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
235 RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LTD.
236 SHIVA CEMENT LIMITED R P GUPTA, AKASH GUPTA, VIKASH GUPTA & OTHERS
237 VAGHANI TECHNO BUILD LTD. (FORMERLY DHRUV MAKHAN (INDIA) LTD.) MR KANTILAL M SAVLA, MS PRATIKSHA, MR KARTIK GALA
238 SHYAMAL HOLDINGS AND TRADING LTD EMPEROR CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT LTD.
239 LOTUS CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD SHRI PERAJE PRAKASH PAI, P ANANTHA PAI
240 PHAARMASIA LTD. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. & PAC
241 SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. IDEA CELLULAR LTD; TMI INDIA LTD., TMI MAURITIUS, TM INTERNATIONAL BERHAD, GREEN ACRE
AGRO SERVICES
242 SJ CORPORATION LTD. (FORMERLY CORCOMP INFOSYSTEMS LTD./ GRANDPA TRADING & AGENCIES LTD.) MR.SAVJIBHAI D. PATEL & MRS. USHA S. PATEL
243 KDL BIOTECH LTD UNIMARK REMEDIES LIMITED

244 SILICON LEASING AND INVESTMENTS LTD (TARANI LEASING AND INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LTD) MR NAGARJUN VALLURIPALLI
245 ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. EMAMI LTD., BVPL, SVPL, DVPL, SCPL,
246 BRAHMAPUTRA INFRAPROJECT LTD. (FORMERLY MEWAR INDUSTRIES LTD.) MR SURESH PRITHANI, BRAHMAPUTRA FINLEASE (P) LTD.
247 CORPORATE MERCHANT BANKERS LTD. COSMOS INDUSTRIES LTD., DDEPAK, BHAVNA YADAV
248 CITI PORT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. M/S GOLDENVALLEY HOLDINGS PVT LTD.
249 BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD SHRI RAHUL BAJAJ, SHEKHAR BAJAJ & PACS
250 UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY (SOUTHEAST ASIA) PTE LTD
251 TRC FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD MR.VIJAY MARIO SEBASTIAN MISQUITTA, MR.AJAY DILKUSH SARUPRIA
252 NEW HORIZON LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED MR. T. RAJKUMAR
253 SHIRPUR GOLD REFINERY LTD (AGEE GOLD REFINERS LTD) JAYNEER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED
254 RAVINDRA TRADING & AGENCIES LIMITED MURKUMBI BIOAGRO PVT. LTD
255 STI INDIA LIMITED EIGHT CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD & PACS, SPINNAKER GLOBAL OPPORTUNITY FUND LTD,
256 PREMIER ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD SHRI HOUSING PVT LTD.
21
257 ASIAN INDEPENDENT NETWORK LTD. RAJIV BHATTL SANJIV BHATTL KIRIT BHATT, KOHINOOR
258 TAINWALA CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS (INDIA) LIMITED MRS. SHOBHA TAINWALA W/O DR. RAMESH TAINWALA
259 ASIAN SKY SHOP LTD. J.B. TV SHOPPING PVT LTD
260 INDUSVISTA VENTURES LTD. (FORMERLY ARIDHI HI-TECH INDUSTRIES LTD) FINAVENTURE ADVISORY SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD.
261 SHAKTIMAN CONSTRUCTIONS LTD (FORMERLY SHAKTIMAN MERCANTILE CO. LTD.) SHRI ASHOK BHANWARLAL CHHAJER AND SMT. SANGEETA
262 MELSTAR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD GODAVARI CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED
263 PUSHKAR BANIJYA LTD MR PAWAN KUMAR CHANDAK & PACS
264 MONOTONA SECURITIES LTD (FORMERLY PALLADIUM TRADING & AGENCIES LTD) M/S. PAN INFOSYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED
265 AVON ORGANICS LIMITED ARCH PHARMALABS LTD
266 NATRAJ FINANCIAL AND SERVICES LTD (FORMERLY NATRAJ COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD) BALAJI BULLIONS & COMMODITIES (I) P. LTD & OTHERS
267 JAISAL SECURITIES LIMITED SRIKANTH RAMANATHAN
268 INDIA CARBON LIMITED OXBOW CARBON MINERALS HOLDINGS INC
269 GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY GEOJIT SECURITIES LTD). BNP PARIBAS SA
270 TRIBHUVAN HOUSING LIMITED C R RAJESH NAIR
271 SOMA TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LTD. MAVI INVESTMENT FUND LTD.
272 SAH PETROLEUMS LTD NAF INDIA HOLDINGS LTD
273 WOOLITE MERCANTILE COMPANY LTD MR. UMEMSH P CHAMDIA
274 SHREE OM TRADES LIMITED MR. GAUTAM MEHTA AND MR. JAIMIN MEHTA
275 ALIPURDUAR TEA COMPANY LIMITED IIC CONTAINER LINE LTD
276 BHILWARA SPINNERS LTD. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR PARMAR
277 AVERY INDIA LTD ITW GLOBAL
278 ALFA LAVAL INDIA LTD (VULCAN TRADING COMPANY LTD/VULCAN-LAVAL LTD) ALFA LAVAL CORPORATE AB
279 DEVINE IMPEX LTD. (FORMERLY CLASSIC GLOBAL IMPEX LIMITED) MR. JAWAHAR LAL JAIN
280 APOLLO SINDHOORI CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LTD.(New Name: Aditya Birla Money) ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD.
281 VANASTHALI TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD MILLENNIUM HOLDINGS LTD
282 MALOO POLYMERS LTD. MR DIPAN PATWA,MANISH JANANI,
283 CENTURY 21ST PORTFOLIO LTD MR HEMRAJ BAID & MRS K ANASUYA
284 TATA TELESERVICES (MAHARASHTRA) LIMITED DOCOMO
285 CAMBRIDGE SOLUTIONS LTD XCHANGING (MAURITIUS) LTD
286 STAR LEASING LTD (STAR LEASING COMPANY LTD) 3A CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. & MR RAJAN M SHAH
287 AADI INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY JRC INDUSTRIES LTD.) MR RUSHABH J SHAH
288 LIFESTYLE FABRICS LTD STRATEGYBOT FINANCE LTD
289 GOLKUNDA DIAMONDS & JEWELLERY LTD NEVERLOOSE PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD
290 JOY REALITY LTD. (FORMERLY MADHUSUDAN LEASING & FINANCE LTD.) BHAVIN SONI GROUP
291 MEDIAONE GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT LTD. (FORMERLY RAJMATA INVESTMENTS & FINANCE LTD.) SHRI PATHEE INVESTMENTS PVT LTD.
292 DR.AGARWAL'S EYE HOSPITAL LTD. DR. J AGARWAL & OTHERS
293 BAYER DIAGNOSTICS INDIA LTD (new Name: SIEMENS HEALTHCARE DIAGNOSTICS LTD.) SIEMENS DIAGONSTICS HOLDING II B.V.
294 GOLDSTONE TECHNOLOGIES LTD (FORMERLY GOLDSTONE ENGINEERING LTD.) GOLDSTONE EXPORTS LTD.
295 ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPN LTD. ALPINE BUILDERS PVT LTD.,JAZ EXPORTS&ENGG. PVT LTD
296 MORAN TEA COMPANY(INDIA) LTD., THE MCLEOD RUSSEL, WILLIAMSON MAGOR, ICHAMATI
22
297 RAY BAN SUN OPTICS INDIA LTD /(BAUSCH & LOMB INDIA LTD) LUXOTICA GROUP S.PA. AND RAY BAN INDIAN HOLDINGS I
298 RANE HOLDINGS LTD. MR L LAKSHMAN, MR L GANESH, HARISH L & PACS
299 B.A.G. FILMS LTD. MR SAMEER GEHLAUT
300 SUMERU INDUSTRIES LTD. MR VIPUL H RAJA, SONAL, NANDIT V RAJA
301 ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LTD. M/S CONSOLIDATED SECURITIES LTD.
302 ARNIT INFOTECHLTD. MRS ARUNA R AJJARAPU, MR K SHRIDHAR & PACS
303 ALFA LAVAL INDIA LTD (VULCAN TRADING COMPANY LTD/VULCAN-LAVAL LTD) ALFA LAVAL AB (PUBL)
304 SOM DATT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. MR SOM DATT KHUNAJA & PAC
305 SWARAJ AUTOMOTIVES LTD MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD., MAHINDRA HOLDINGS & FINANCE LTD.
306 SWARAJ ENGINES LTD MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD, MAHINDRA HOLDINGS & FINANCE LTD.
307 PUNJAB TRACTORS LTD MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD., MAHINDRA HOLDINGS & FINANCE LTD.
308 IMP FINANCE LIMITED (New Name: KANANI INDUSTRIES LTD) MR VINUBHAI L KANANI & MR PREMJIBHAI D KANANI
309 PANYAM CEMENTS & MINERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. S.SREEDHAR REDDY & PACS
310 MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH
311 NEEMTEK ORGANICS PRODUCTS LTD / (United Interactive Limited ) SMT SARAYU SOMAIYA
312 FUTURISTIC SOLUTIONS LTD / (MORAL LEASING LTD) MS NANDITA SHAUNIK
313 INTEGRATED CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. DEORA ASSOCIATES PVT LTD.
314 CORCOMP INFOSYSTEMS LTD.(FORMERLY GRANDPA TRADING & AGENCIES LIMITED.) MR DAYABHAI, JAGDISHBHAI,SAVJIBHAI, USHA PATEL
315 ALLIANZ CAPITAL & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD NAVJEET, GURPREET SOBTI & INNOVATIVE MONEY MATTERS
316 CHESLIND TEXTILES LTD. RSWM LTD.
317 BHAGYANAGAR CASTINGS LTD. MR M SRINIVASA REDDY
318 TEBMA SHIPYARDS LTD. INDIA ADVANTAGE FUND - VI
319 MULTIPLUS HOLDINGS LTD. MR JIGNESH SHETH, MRS KRISHNA J SHETH
320 TV TODAY NETWORK LTD RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD.
321 ELECTRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. MR K JAIN, MUKESH J, NAVIN J, SUNIL JAIN & PACS
322 WELLWORTH SECURITIES LTD MR SANDEEP JHAVERI, MRS RAJUL S JHAVERI
323 AUTOMOTIVE STAMPINGS AND ASSEMBLIES LIMITED (FORMERLY JBM TOOLS LIMITED) GESTAMP SERVICIOS, S.L.
324 BENZO PETRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. MR JASBIR SINGH SODHI
325 SCHLAFHORST ENGINEERING (INDIA) LTD. OC OERLIKON CORPORATION AG & PAC
326 FAIRFIELD ATLAS LTD (ATLAS GEARS LTD) OC OERLIKON CORPORATION AG, & TH LICENSING INC., U
327 AVERY INDIA LTD AV ACQUISITION CO. 3
328 CONTECH SOFTWARE LTD. SHYAM S TIBREWAL,SIDDHARTH, LAXMI & MONICA TIBREWA
329 BOMBAY POLYMERS LTD (new Name: ZENZY TECHNOCRATS LTD) MR NITIN HARIDAS SHENOY
330 MADAN FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.(Rishab Financial Services) MANGAL KIRAN SECURITIES LTD.
331 TELEPHOTO ENTERTAINMENTS LTD PVP ENTERPRISES, PVP VENTURES, PLATEX, PRASAD V
332 SSI LTD. PVP ENERPRISES PVT LTD., PVP VENTURES PVT LTD.(PAC
333 ROSSELL TEA LTD BMG ENTERPRISES LIMITED
334 SCANA COLOR (INDIA) LTD. (Karma Ispat Ltd) MR RAJESH G MEHTA, MRS BHAVNA RAJESH MEHTA
335 SAVANT INFOCOMM LTD. WESTERN INDIA STEEL CO.PVT LTD., B PARIKH, MINA
336 KILITCH DRUGS (INDIA) LIMITED NBZ PHARMA LIMITED
23
337 BLUE CIRCLE SERVICES LTD. YASH SHELTERS LTD.
338 ESAB INDIA LTD EXELVIA GROUP B.V. & PACS
339 SECURITIES CAPITAL INVESTMENTS (INDIA) LTD. SHRI RAJASHEKAR S IYER
340 SESA GOA LIMITED WESTGLOBE LTD., RICHTER HOLDING LTD., VEDANTA RESO
341 DECCAN AVIATION LIMITED KINGFISHER RADIO LIMITED
342 ASIAN CERC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD. (new Name: Religare Technova Global Solutions Limited) FORTIS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. (new Name: Religare Technova)
343 WINSOME INTERNATIONAL LTD. PUNRASAR STOCK BROKING (P) LTD., S R AGARWAL
344 VINAY CEMENTS LTD. MR RITESH BAWRI, MR VINAY BAWRI, MS MALA BAWRI
345 JRC INDUSTRIES LTD. MR RUSHABH J SHAH
346 WENDT (INDIA) LIMITED WINTERTHUR TECHNOLOGIE AG, ZUG
347 K B STEEL LIMITED MR VIPUL J MODI, LEENA MODI, VIPUL MODI (HUF)
348 DUROFLEX ENGINEERING LTD. MS NITI N DIDWANIA
349 BLISS GVS PHARMA LIMITED SHIBOOR N KAMATH
350 BHAGYASHREE LEASING AND FINANCE LTD MR VIMALKUMAR,KEWAL, INDER, MANISH, RAJAS JAIN
351 AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD (FORMERLY GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD) HOLDERIND INVESTMENTS LIMITED
352 SOMA TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LTD. KRISHNAA GLASS PVT LTD. & PACS
353 KAUSAR INDIA LTD. GATI LIMITED
354 CHETTINAD CEMENT CORPORATION LTD CHETTINAD SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD & PACS
355 FRONTIER LEASING & FINANCE LTD VIJAY, SHEELA, VAIBAH, SHRADDHA SAWANT& OTHERS
356 LUMINAIRE TECHNOLOGIES LTD M/S INDIANIVESH LTD.
357 A K SPINTEX LTD. MR T C CHHABRA, MRS S CHHABRA, SAURABH, FASHION SU
358 MOVING PICTURE COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED CONSOLIDATED SECURTIES LIMITED
359 VANASTHALI TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD RAJENDRA GOENKA, BENI PRASA GOENKA & PACS
360 TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED TATA SONS LIMITED
361 ARYAMAN FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. M/S MAHSHRI ENTERPRISES PVT LTD.
362 LUMAX INDUSTRIES LTD. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.
363 CANFIN HOMES LIMITED CANARA BANK
364 SELLAIDS PUBLICATIONS (INDIA) LTD. SUBHASH P RATHOD, MANGLA S RATHOD
365 POLYTEX INDIA LIMITED ARVIND MULJI KARYA
366 G G AUTOMOTIVE GEARS LTD HAKEEM AUTO LTD.
367 IFL PROMOTERS LTD. HEENA DEVELOPERS (PVT) LTD.
368 ZENOTECH LABORATORIES LIMITED RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED
369 OLYMPIC OIL INDUSTRIES LTD. VIJAY, MUKUND,TUSHAR PATIL & PACS
370 WPIL LTD (WORTHINGTON PUMP INDIA LTD/ JOHNSTON PUMPS INDIA LTD/) ASUTOSH ENTERPRISES LTD (BSE:512433) & HINDUSTAN UDYOG LTD
371 FOSECO INDIA LTD COOKSON GROUP PLC
372 GOKALDAS EXPORTS LTD. BLACKSTONE FP CAPITAL PARTNERS(MAURITIUS) V-B SUBS, BLACKSTONE HOLDING MAURITIUS,
BLACKSTONE GRP (PAC)
373 PODDAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. (FORMERLY TRANS-OCEANIC PROPERTIES LTD.) RAJENDRA S SHAH, MITUL J SHAH
374 MALAR HOSPITALS LTD INTERNATIONAL HOSPITALS PRIVATE LTD
24
375 INTRA INFOTECH LTD. FORTUNE BUILDPROP PVT LTD.
376 LANCO GLOBAL SYSTEMS LTD K. VENKATESWARA RAO & PACS
377 SRF POLYMERS LTD/ (SRF CHEMICALS LTD) (New Name:Kama Holdings) BHAIRAV/NARMADA FARMS PVT LTD., ARUN B RAM (PAC)
378 SPLASH MEDIAWORKS LTD. (FORMERLY HINDUSTAN STOCKLAND LTD.) MR ARUN DAGARIA, MR CHIRAG SHAH
379 G.P. ELECTRONICS LTD. (New Name: Delta Magnets) AARTI MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY PVT LTD & PACS
380 JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT JUTE MILLS CO. LTD. RAINEY PARKS SUPPLIERS PVT LTD., MOOLDHAN ADVISORY SYSTEM PVT LTD.,
381 SHREE DIGVIJAY CEMENT COMPNAY LIMITED CIMPOR INVERSIONES S.A. SOCIEDAD LIMITADA
382 PARAAN LTD. MR KAILASH H BIYANI, MR K MOHATTA
383 SOFTBPO GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. FINFLOW INVESTMENTS PVT LTD (FIPL)
384 LANXESS ABS LIMITED INEOS ABS (JERSEY) LIMITED & PACS
385 SYSTEMATIX CORPORATE SERVICES LIMITED SUPERSTAR EXPORTS PVT LTD & OTHERS
386 COMMITMENT CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED SRECKO INDHAN LTD
387 PAREKH DISTRIBUTORS LTD MR PRAFUL M PATEL & MRS VARSHA P PATEL
388 JRG SECURITIES LIMITED DUCKWORTH PRIVATE LIMITED
389 SOFTPRO SYSTEMS LTD. SAHASRA INVESTMENTS PVT LTD., G REDDY, G V MARY
390 NAVKAR BUILDERS LTD. MR DAKSHESH SHAH, MR S PATEL, MR U SHAH
391 JAGSON AIRLINES LIMITED JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD
392 GL HOTELS LTD, THE DUNEARN INVESTMENTS (MAURITIUS) PTE LTD
393 BAJAJ HINDUSTHAN SUGAR AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED (FORMERLY THE PRATAPPUR SUGAR & INDUSTRIES BAJAJ HINDUSTHAN LTD
LIMITED)
394 JATIA FINANCE LTD SHRI ANIL, AMBIKA RAIKA, MAHESH & SARITA SARAF
395 BEMCO HYDRAULICS LTD. MOHTA CAPITAL PVT LTD.
396 PIRAMYD RETAIL LIMITED (New Name:Indiabulls Retail Services Limited) INDIABULLS WHOLESALE SERVICES LIMITED & PACS
397 CAMLIN FINE CHEMICALS LTD. SHRI ASHISH DANDEKAR & PACS
398 GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD HOLCIM MAURITIUS
399 SANGAM (INDIA) LTD. INDIA ADVANTAGE FUND, SWASTIK COAL CORPN (INDIA) LTD., THAMIRAPARANI INVESTMENT PVT
LTD.
400 SURYAMUKHI TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.(New Name: Bio Green Industries Ltd) MR AMRUT P SHAH
401 RGN SECURITIES AND HOLDINGS LTD. WEBFUND FOUNDATION PVT LTD.
402 SAURASHTRA CHEMICALS LTD. NIRMAL CHEMICAL WORKS LTD., NIRMA CREDIT & CAPITAL LTD., NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD.
403 INDO RAMA TEXTILES LTD. SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD.

404 7SEAS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (FORMERLY FLAIR INVESTMENT AND FINANCE LTD) MR LINGAMANENI SANKER, MR N R KOLLA, MRS KS KUMARI
405 KAKATIYA TEXTILES LTD. MR L G RAMAMURTHI, MR SUMANTH RAMAMURTHI
406 GREYCELLS ENTERTAINMENT LTD. MR UDAY SINH WALA, MRS SIMERON GHEI
407 RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD. ANADHA ENTERPRISE PVT LTD. & SHRI ANIL AMBANI
408 FICOM ORGANICS LTD. COROMANDEL FERTILIZERS LTD.
409 CARNATION NUTRA ANALOGUE FOODS LTD. (new Name: Zydus Wellness) CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED
410 HITECH ENTERTAINMENT LTD (New Name: Accentia Technologies Ltd) MR PRADEEP SUSEELA VISWAMBHARAN
411 MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LTD. MR SURESH KUMAR PODDAR
25
412 SEALORD CONTAINERS LTD AEGIS LOGISTICS LTD.
413 SHIVAJI SECURITIES LIMITED (new Name: Indiaco Ventures Limited) IAQUAVIT CONSULTING PVT LTD.
414 BIO WHITEGOLD INDUSTRIES LTD. MR RAVINDRAN RAMOJI
415 SECUNDERABAD HEALTH CARE LTD. MR MEDASANI MUNISEKHAR
416 SHIN HO PETROCHEMICALS (INDIA) LTD. (New Name: SPL Polymers Limited) SUPREME PETROCHEM LTD.
417 SYNERGY LOG IN SYSTEMS LTD. M/S GLOBSYN TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MR SAMARTH PAREKH
418 MPHASIS BFL LTD. TH HOLDINGS, PAC - ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPN.
419 FINANCIAL EYES (INDIA) LTD. MS ABHILASHA AGARWAL & PAC (MK AGRI INTNL LTD.)
420 GTL LTD. GLOBAL ASSETS HOLDING CORPORATION PVT LTD.&PAC, FINAV SECURITIES P LTD.
421 SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD CITIGROUP VENTURE CAPITAL INTNL.(CVCIGPML), CITIGROUP VENTURE CAPITAL INTNL JERSEY LTD.
422 STRESSCRETE INDIA LTD MR RAJESH BABULAL VARDHAR & PACS

423 TAINWALA POLYCONTAINERS LTD. (Plastics manufacturing) TIME PACKAGING LTD.
424 ABHA PROPERTY PROJECT LTD MR JAGDISH PRASAD AGARWALLA & PACS
425 MULTIPURPOSE TRADING AND AGENCIES LTD MR AJAY SINGH, B KANSAGR,SANJAY MALHOTRA
426 SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD SPINNAKER CLOBAL OPPORTUNITY FUND LTD. & PACS, SPINNAKER GLOBAL EMERGING MKTS LTD.
427 IMP FINANCE LIMITED (New Name: KANANI INDUSTRIES LTD) MATRIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD
428 VAIBHAV GEMS LTD. CORTLAND INVESTMENT LTD.
429 MAGNUM LTD. MR SHAILESH, MUKESH BHANDARI & OTHERS
430 TRIGYN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. UNITED TELECOMS LTD.
431 AVENTIS PHARMA LIMITED SANOFI-SYNTHELABO
432 AMIT SPINNING INDUSTRIES LTD. SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD.
433 CINERAD COMMUNICATIONS LTD. M/S PRANIDHI ESTATES P LTD., M/S INDIAEMERGING CAP
434 EXIM FINANCE LTD. SRI RAJKUMAR LADHA, GIRIRAJ LADHA,OMPRAKASH LADHA
435 INFO-DRIVE SOFTWARE LTD. BHARI INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS PVT LTD., MR V N SESHAGIRI RAO
436 ELTEX SUPER CASTINGS LTD KOVILPATTI LAKSHMI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LTD.
437 SHAKTIMAN MERCANTILE CO. LTD. MR RAJESH KAKANI, MRS RACHANA KAKANI
438 JAMES HOTELS LTD. SH. AJMAIR SINGH BHULLAR, SH. H S ARORA & PACS
439 DHANDAPANI FINANCE LTD. D B ZWIRN MAURITIUS
440 BHARAT FERTILISER INDUSTRIES LTD. WADA ALUMS & ACIDS LTD.
441 RDB INDUSTRIES LTD. MR VINOD DUGAR AND MRS SHEETAL DUGAR
442 STARCHIK SPECIALITIES LTD. MR SANJAY SINGH, MR RITESH SINGH
443 ERA FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) LTD. MR HS BHARANA & PACS, ERA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) LTD. PESHWA REALTORS LTD
444 PARAMESHWAR (INDIA) LTD M/S PESU R BHOJWANI, PHATTU R BHOJWANI, RAJESH B
445 SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD SHRIRAM HOLDINGS (MADRAS) PVT LTD. & PACS, NEW BRIDGE INVESTMENTS III LTD.
446 SHRIRAM OVERSEAS FINANCE LTD / (PIONEER OVERSEAS FINANCE LTD) SHRIRAM HOLDINGS (MADRAS) PVT LTD. & PACS, NEW BRIDGE INDIA INVSTMNTS II LTD
26
447 TTK HEALTHCARE LTD TT KRISHNAMACHARI & CO.
448 DEHRADUN TEA COMPANY LTD. LOGICAL BUILDWELL PVT LTD.
449 DANTA VYAPAR KENDRA LTD SHREE VINAY FINVEST PVT LTD., KC TEXOLINE, LARIGO, KC TEXOFINE PVT LTD., LARIGO INVSTMNT
PVT LTD.
450 WEIZMANN FINCORP LTD. TRADE APARTMENTS LTD.
451 PRADEEP METALS LTD FLASHNET INFO SOLUTIONS (INDIA) LTD.
452 WPIL LTD (WORTHINGTON PUMP INDIA LTD/ JOHNSTON PUMPS INDIA LTD/) ASUTOSH ENTERPRISES LTD.
453 INDO GULF INDUSTRIES LTD. BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD.
454 ALLSEC TECHNOLOGIES LTD. FIRST CARLYLE VENTURES MAURITIUS, CARLYLE ASIA GROWTH PARTNERS III LP & OTHERS (PAC)
455 SONPAL CEMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. MR L RAVINDER REDDY

456 MATRIX LABORATORIES LTD (HERREN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD) (HERREN DRUGS PVT LTD) MP LABORATORIES (MAURITIUS) LTD. & MYLAN(PAC)
457 CRAZY INFOTECH LTD. M/S AANJAAY SOFTWARE LTD.
458 TEMPTATION FOODS LIMITED VENTURE BUSINESS ADVISORS PVT LTD.
459 SAARC NET LTD GOVIND SHARDA, ASHISH AGARWAL
460 KRITI INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD KRITI CORPORATE SERVICES PVT LIMITED
461 I-FLEX SOLUTIONS LTD. ORACLE GLOBAL (MAURITIUS) LTD., ORACLE CORPN (PAC)
462 NAGARJUNA AGRI TECH LTD. SWEET SOLUTIONS LTD.
463 INNOVA HEALTH SYSTEMS LTD. MR PVRRLN PRASAD, MR P KOTESWARA RAO
464 VISION CORPORATION LTD. MORRIES TRADING PVT LTD., ASHOK & PUNYAM MISHRA
465 EXDON TRADING COMPANY LTD. MR ASHOK KUMAR SHAH, MR MANSUKHBHAI VAGASIA
466 EWEB UNIV LTD. (New Name:Apis India Limited) MR VIMAL ANAND, AMIT, DEEPAK. MRS PREM ANAND
467 MYSORE CEMENTS LTD CEMENTRUM I B.V. & HELDELBERG CEMENT AG (PAC)
468 BHAGYODAYA MARKETING CO. LTD. SHRI GAURAV MEHTA
469 RAJATH FINANCE LTD / (RAJATH LEASING & FINANCE LTD) MR HITESH M BAGDAI, POONAM BAGDAI, BHAVDEEP VALA
470 PARICHAY INVESTMENTS LTD SHRI OMI BAGADIYA, S BAGADIYA,A AGRAWAL, R AGRWAL
471 JAIHIND SYNTHETICS LTD MIHIR D KARIA
472 CHOICE INTERNATIONAL LTD TENET BIO PHARMA PVT LTD
473 IL&FS INVESTSMART LTD. E'TRADE MAURITIS LTD. & PAC, CONVERGING ARROWS INC., E'TRADE FINANCIAL CORPN.
474 MPHASIS LTD. TH HOLDINGS

475 PHOENIX LAMPS LTD ARGON INDIA LTD., ARGON SOUTH ASIA LTD & PACS
476 FULFORD (INDIA) LTD. DASHTAG
477 PORWAL AUTO COMPONENTS LTD. PORWAL FINSEC PVT LTD.
478 DOVER SECURITIES LTD MONEY MATTERS (INDIA) PVT LTD.
479 GODAVARI FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD COROMANDEL FERTILIZERS LTD.
480 DEVAKI HOSPITAL LIMITED (New Name: Chennai Meenakshi Multispeciality Hospital Limited) A N RADHAKRISHNAN
481 ISHWAR BHUVAN HOTELS LTD. ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., SMT. SANGITA BANSAL
482 ANIL SPECIAL STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. MR SUDHIR KHAITAN & PACS
483 YASHRAJ SECURITIES LTD. (New Name: Alps Commercial Ltd.,) SHRI K K METHA, AS BHARANI, V SAWANT, PFCPL
27
484 MILLARS INDIA LIMITED SKYLINE VISION PVT LIMITED
485 P I DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED FRAXIS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS
486 TEJ INFOWAYS LTD. MR NUKARAPU SURYA PRAKASH RAO
487 VISHAL MALLEABLES LTD Shri O P KHETAN & OTHERS
488 CRISIL LTD. THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES INC, S&P INDIA LLC
489 PANYAM CEMENTS & MINERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. S SREEDHAR REDDY & PACS
490 SHAW WALLACE & COMPANY LTD. MCDOWELL, PHIPSON, UNITED SPIRITS
491 SATGURU AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. MR BHARATBHAI V CHANGELA & PACS, PACS
492 JAYAVANT PRODUCTS LIMITED JYOTI BRIGHT BAR LTD., SHRI JITENDRA MEHTA, SHRI DEVEN MEHTA (PACS)
493 GUJARAT FOILS LTD MR PRAMOD JAIN
494 EXPRESS LEASING LIMITED (New Name: Satra Properties India) MR PRAFUL NANJI SATRA, MRS MINAXI PRAFUL SATRA
495 CHAMATKAR.NET (INDIA) LTD M/S SHREENATH FINSTOCK PVT LTD., M/S KISHOR OSTWAL, SANGITA OSTWAL, M/S K P OSWAL
496 CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD ALK HOLDINGS PVT LTD & PACS
497 THAMARAPALLY RUBBER COMPANY LIMITED, THE A V GEORGE AND CO PVT LTD & PACS
498 RANA SUGARS LTD RANA INDER PRATAP SINGH,RANA VEER PRATAP SINGH, RANA KARAN PARTAP SINGH,RANA PREET
INDER SINGH
499 SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD. UNO INVESTMENTS, CHRYSCAPITAL III, LLC (PAC)
500 SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD UNO INVESTMENTS, CHRYSCAPITAL III LLC (PAC)
501 SHRIRAM OVERSEAS FINANCE LTD / (PIONEER OVERSEAS FINANCE LTD) UNO INVESTMENTS
502 AMBUJA CEMENT EASTERN LTD HOLDCEM CEMENTS INDIA PVT LTD. (HOLCIM INDIA), HOLDERIND INVESTMENTS LTD.(HOLCIM
MAURITIUS), AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA LTD., GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD.
503 TRIPEX OVERSEAS LIMITED M/S SURBHI CAPITAL AND FINANCE PVT LTD, M/S LAKHANI MARKETING PVT LTD., MR
MANINDERSINGH S JOLLY, MR ASHOK JAIN
504 CLS LTD. MR ANAND NARAYAN SINGH, MRS INDU SINGH, ANAND INDUSTRIES PVT LTD. (AIPL), ANAND
NARAYAN SINGH & SONS (HUF)
505 BIHAR CAUSTIC & CHEMICALS LTD HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., PILANI INVESTMENT & INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD (PAC)
506 COLOR CHIP ENTERTAINMENT & MEDIA LTD. /(JANPRIYA MARKETING LTD) MR R S SUDHISH, M/S RAVIKAANTH PORTFOLIO SERVICES PVT LTD. (PAC), MRS R SREELAKSHMI
(PAC), MR R.S.S.C PRASAD (PAC)
507 GEC ALSTHOM INDIA LTD., (ALSTOM LTD.) AREVA T&D SA, AREVA T&D HOLDINGS SA
508 COLOUR-CHEM LTD EBITO CHEMIEBETEILIGUNGEN AG, CLARIANT INTERNATIONAL LTD (PAC), CLARIANT AG (PAC)
509 NU-TECH CORPORATE SERVICES LTD. M/S SUPERSTAR EXPORTS PVT LTD., M/S RANEKA FINCOM PVT LTD., M/S PADMAVATIASHA
PROPERTIES & PROJECTS PVT LTD., M/S PRANAM SECURITIES LTD.
510 VANAVIL DYES AND CHEMICALS LTD EBITO CHEMIEBETEILIGUNGEN AG, COLOUR-CHEM LTD AND PACS
511 WELLWORTH SECURITIES LTD RAJUL S JHAVERI
512 RUBFILA INTERNATIONAL LTD RUBPRO SDN BHD (RUBRPO), ANNIE GUAT KHUAN, BARRY YATES, CHRISTOPHER CHONG
28
513 INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT TRUST LTD M/S SUPERSTAR EXPORTS PVT LTD., M/S RANEKA FINCOM PVT LTD,, M/S PADMAVATIASHA
PROPERTIES & PROJECTS PVT LTD., M/S PRANAM SECURITIES LTD.
514 FORTUNE INFOTECH LTD COVANSYS (I) LTD

515 JHANTLA INVESTMENTS LTD (New Name:Veer Energy and Infrastructure) JIGAR J SHAH
516 FLEXO FILM WRAPS (INDIA) LTD RAJUL S JHAVERI
517 HINDUSTAN DORR-OLIVER LTD IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURES & PROJECTS LTD.
518 TYPHOON HOLDINGS LTD. SMT KAJAL SHAH
519 HINDUSTAN OIL EXPLORATION CO. LTD. ENI S.P.A.,BURREN ENERGY INDIA LTD., UNOCAL BHARAT LTD (PAC)
520 ADLABS FILMS LTD. RELIANCE LAND PRIVATE LTD., RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD.
521 DHRUV MAKHAN (INDIA) LTD. (New Name:Vaghani Techno-Build) MR BAVCHANDBHAI J VAGHANI,GOVIND VAGHANI, MRS HASUMATI B VAGHANI, MRS KIRTIBEN G
VAGHANI
522 RELIANCE CAPITAL LIMITED AAA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, ANIL D AMBANI
523 VASUNDHARA RASAYANS LTD P & J CRETECHEM PVT LTD
524 KADAMB CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. MRS LAXMI CHOUDHARY AND MR JAYESH SONI
525 WIMCO LTD (manufacturer and exporter of Cardboard matches) SWEDISH MATCH SINGAPORE PTE LTD., SWEDISH MATCH AB, HARAVON INVSTMNTS PTE LTD.,,
SEED TRADING PTE. LTD.
526 CONSOLIDATED SECURITIES LTD MUNDRA CREDIT & INVESTMENT PVT LTD
527 HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS & INDUSTRIES LTD / (HINDUSTHAN NATIONAL GLASS MFG. CO. LTD) ACE GLASS CONTAINERS LTD, C K SOMANY, SANJAY SOMANY, AMITA SOMANY (PAC), MUKUL
SOMANY, SUDHA SOMANY,RASHMI SOMANY (PAC), JAYA KANORIA (PAC), NOBLE ENCLAVE &
TOWRS PVT LTD, RUNGMATEE TREXIM P, SPOTLIGHT VANIJYA LTD, SPOTME TRACON P LTD, (PAC)
528 SPACE COMPUTER & SYSTEMS LTD DR. G.RAVICHANDERAN, USHA VENKATRAMANI
529 SQL STAR INTERNATIONAL LTD. M/S SUPERSTAR EXPORTS PVT LTD., M/S PADMAVATIASHA PROPERTIES AND PROJECTS PVT LTD.,
MR N R GANTI
530 SOFTBPO GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. SHRI LAXMINARAIN B BIYANI, VIJAY, SUNIL BIYANI, ANIL BIYANI, EKTA RAKESH BIYANI, SANTOSH V
BIYANI
531 UNITED VAN DER HORST LTD. MR USHPAL,INDERPAL,JAGMEET, DILPRIT SING SABHARWAL
532 ONDEO NALCO INDIA LTD /(NALCO CHEMICALS INDIA LTD) NALCO HOLDINGS LLC, NALCO COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ONDEO NALCO CO), NALCO
HOLDINGS
533 MATHER AND PLATT FIRE SYSTEMS LTD. WLO AG (WILO), ALLIED CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS PVT LTD. (ACP)
534 RUTTONSHA INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER LTD. M/S ORIENT SEMI CONDUCTORS PVT LTD., MRS BHAVNA N MEHTA (NRI)
535 MAHADEO FERTILIZERS LTD KHAITAN CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD, SHRADHA PROJECTS LTD
536 MATHER AND PLATT PUMPS LTD. WILO AG(WILO), ALLIED CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS PVT LTD.
537 VALUEMART INFO TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (ERSTWHILE GDR SOFTWARE LTD) RIPPLE INVESTMENTS LTD.
538 WILLIAMSON TEA ASSAM LTD MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD, WILLIAMSON MAGOR & CO LTD, UNITED MACHINE CO LTD, ICHAMATI
INVESTMENTS LTD, NITYA HOLDINGS & PROPERTIES PVT LTD
539 PARSOLI CORPORATION LTD ZAFAR SARESHWALA, HABIBULLAH AKUDI

540 APTECH LTD (APTECH ON-LINE LTD / APTECH TRAINING LTD) M/S APTECH INVESTMENTS
541 DISA INDIA LTD DISA HOLDING A/S
542 NAM CREDIT & INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (New Name:BGIL Films and Technologies) MR RAKESH BHHATIA, MS ARTI BHATIA & BGIL, BGIL - BHARATIYA GLOBAL INFOMEDIA LTD.
29
543 I-FLEX SOLUTIONS LTD. ORACLE GLOBAL (MAURITIUS) LTD., ORACLE CORPORATION (PAC)
544 FACTS SECURITIES LTD. MR RAJIV KASHYAP
545 SARASWATI COMMERCIAL (INDIA) LTD WINRO COMMERCIAL (INDIA) LTD., FOUR DIMENSIONS COMMODITIES PVT LTD.,(PAC), FOUR
DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (INDIA) LTD., PAC, WINDSOR TRADING & FIN.PVT LTD., SAM JAG DEEP
INVST
546 CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LTD DBS BANK LTD
547 RAJMATA INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE LTD (new Name: Mediaone Global Entertainment) MR SURYARAJ KUMAR
548 KHATOO SYNTHETICS LTD USHA VENKATARAMANI, VATSALA RANGANATHAN, SHRIRAM ECP LIMITED
549 THE PRATAPPUR SUGAR AND INDUSTRIES LTD BAJAJ HINDUSTHAN LTD
550 SSI LTD (new Name: PVP Ventures) MR KALPATHI S AGHORAM, KALPATHI S GANESH, SURESH
551 LALPHUL INVESTMENTS LTD. MRS MANISHA KHETAN
552 GENERA INDUSTRIES LTD. MR M R NAIDU, MRS M K RAJ
553 DIAMANT INVESTMENT AND FINANCE LTD. VISION SALES PVT LTD., SABOO CAPITAL & SECURITIES
554 IID FORGINGS LTD. (new Name: Arshiya International) MRS ARCHANA A MITTAL
555 ARONI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (New Name:Aroni Commercials) WINRO COMMERCIAL (INDIA) LTD. & PACS, SARASWATI COMMERCIAL (INDIA) LTD.
556 KAR MOBILES LTD RANE ENGINE VALVES LTD

557 KHAITAN WEAVING MILLS LTD (New Name:Spectacle Industries) BALAJI SYNTHETIC SACKS PVT LTD
558 ASIA PACK LTD MADANLAL PALIWAL, SUSHILA DEVI PALIWAL
559 MICRO INKS LTD. MHM HOLDING GMBH
560 QUINTEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD V. SHANKARRAMAN, R. VENKATARAMANI
561 MULTIMETALS LTD MR RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, SHAMBHU AGRAWAL, V D AGRAWAL
562 PAN PACKAGING INDUSTRIES LTD (New Name: Alchemist Realty) KDS CORPORATION PVT LTD
563 INSUL ELECTRONICS LTD. (New Name: Sunteck Realty) MRS MANISHA KHETAN
564 NEELAMALAI AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD MR AJIT THOMAS
565 WENDT (INDIA) LIMITED WENDT HOLDING GMBH, WENDT GMBH (PAC)
566 ONLINE MEDIA SOLUTIONS LTD. (OMSL) (New Name:Virgo Global Media) SAVERA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.
567 SHRICON INDUSTRIES LTD. MR OM PRAKASH MAHESWARI, M K MAHESHWARI, WTL, IIPL, WELLWIN TECHNOSOFT LTD.,
IMPERIAL INFIN PVT LTD.
568 ZYDEN GENTEC LTD. SHARDA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT LTD., DR. R K DHAR, DR RAJENDRANATH DHAR, MRS PRARINA D
569 JMT AUTO LTD. BACH LTD., CHRYSCAPITAL III, LLC

570 DAWN MILLS COMPANY LTD. ALLTIME MERCANTILE COMPANY PVT & PAC, NEWZONE MERCANTILE CO PVT LTD., (is part of the
Piramal Group.)
571 SELLAIDS PUBLICATIONS (INDIA) LTD. MR DC PAREKH, MR MS MEHTA, MR RP SHAH, MR V PODDAR
572 SHIVALIK AGRO POLY PRODUCTS LTD MR P K MAHAJAN, R C GUPTA, DR.G D TYAGI, M/SPP PERFECT PACS LTD
573 EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. EVEREST FINVEST (INDIA) PVT LTD, MRINALINI TRUST
574 FUTURISTIC SECURITIES LTD ANAND KUMAR THIRANI
575 TELEPHOTO ENTERTAINMENTS LTD SSI LTD.
576 AIMCO PESTICIDES LTD. XCEL CROP CARE LTD.
577 NATRAJ COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD (New Name: Natraj Financial & Services Ltd) MR TEJASH SHAH, SANDESH FINVEST PVT LTD.
30
578 SHELL INFOTECH LTD (THE STARITE SECURITIES & TRUST LTD) K JAGADEESHA PAI
579 SOWBHAGYA EXPORTS LTD. SIRI MEDIA PVT LTD.
580 THOMAS COOK INDIA LTD (THOMAS COOK (INDIA) PVT LTD) DUBAI FINANCIAL (LLC)
581 UNITECH LIMITED PRAKAUSALI INVESTMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD. & PACS
582 GALAXY ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION LTD. PANTALOON
583 FCI OEN CONNECTORS LTD /FRAMATONE CONNECTORS OEN LTD. (O/E/N CONNECTORS LTD) FIDJI LUXCO (BC) SCA
584 WOOLITE MERCANTILE COMPANY LTD. MR SRIDHAR BHUPATHIRAJU
585 GROWEL INVESTMENT LTD. (New Name:Money Masters Investment) MR HOZEF DARUKHANAWAL
586 S & Y MILLS LIMITED (New Name:Pittsburgh Iron and Steels) ELGO IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED
587 DPSC LTD. ENVIRON ENERGY TECH SERVICE LTD.
588 PENNAR INDUSTRIES LTD. M/S THAPATI TRADING PVT LTD., M/S PALGUNA CONSULTANTS PVT LTD.
589 JBF INDUSTRIES LTD CITIGROUP VENTURE CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL GROWTH PAR
590 WINRO COMMERCIAL (INDIA) LTD JACQART CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & PACS
591 ELECTRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. ANIL B VEDMEHTA, PRIYANKA A VEDMEHTA
592 STRESSCRETE INDIA LTD JOY HOME CREATION PRIVATE LTD,, K JAWAHAR MAHI, JAYANT BHAVANJI, MARINA J MAHI (PAC),
BHAVIN J SONI (PAC)
593 RAJATH FINANCE LTD / (RAJATH LEASING & FINANCE LTD) UNICORN HOLDINGS PRIVATE LTD, SHRI CHAMANLAL V KAMANI (PAC), SHRI RASHMI C KAMANI,
DEEPAK C KAMANI (PAC)
594 INERTIA INDUSTRIES LTD (New Name: Millennium Beer Industries) MCDOWELL ALCOBEV LIMITED
595 SARIKA PAINTS LTD SHRI DHARMESH A SHAH
596 MARDA COMMERCIAL & HOLDINGS LTD SHASHI AGARWAL, KANNU PRIAY AGARWAL, HIMANI AGARW, SADANAND AGARWAL, ROMIL
AGARWAL, SHALINI AGARWAL, D N AGARWAL (HUF), MEENU AGARWAL, SNEHA AGARWAL,
SANMUKH AGARWAL, LALIT AGARWAL, LALIT AGARWAL (HUF), DAULAT RAM AGARWAL, LAXMI
DEVI AGARWAL, ADVANCE ISPAT (INDIA) LTD (PAC)
597 VIVO BIO TECH LTD. (FORMERLY SUNSHINE FACTORS & EXPORTS LTD.) SHRI SHRI RESORTS PVT LTD
598 RAASI REFRACTORIES LTD. ASHOK AGARWAL AND SANJAY AGARWAL
599 TATA TELECOM LTD (New Name: AGC Networks) AVAYA MAURITIUS LTD. & PACS
600 ORBIT EXPORTS LIMITED MR PANKAJ SETH, MRS ANISHA SETH AND PACS
601 SERVE-ALL INVESTMENTS LIMITED M/S YALAMATI S CHAKRAVARTI & PACS
602 GANDHIDHAM SPG. & MFG. CO. LTD., THE MR. PARASMAL MUNILAL JAIN,MRS KAMLADEVI P DEVI, PRADEEP P JAIN, SANDEEP PARASMAL
JAIN, GAUTAM & COMPANY, ARVIND V JOSHI, MR. SUKHRAJ AMARCHAND SINGHVI, ASHOKKUMAR
A SINGHV, MR. BABULAL AMARCHAND SINGHVI, TRIBHUVAN A SINGHVI, RAMESHKUMAR A
SINGHVI
603 BLISS CHEMCIALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA LTD (New Name:Bliss GVS Pharma Ltd) M/S M G WAGLE, GAUTAM R ASHRA & SHIBROOR N KAMATH
604 WPIL LTD (WORTHINGTON PUMP INDIA LTD/ JOHNSTON PUMPS INDIA LTD/) HINDUSTAN UDYOG LIMITED
605 SAUMYA CONSULTANTS LTD ARUN KUMAR AGARWALLA, SUDHA AGARWALLA, A K AGARWAL (HUF)
606 SIDHI HOLDINGS AND TRADERS LTD (New Name: Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Limited) M/S KIRTI M KANAKIA, NIKUNJ K KANAKIA
607 RR GREENHANDS INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. (New Name: SAAG RR INFRA LTD) SAAG (MAURITIUS) LTD & PACS
608 MATRIX LABORATORIES LTD (HERREN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD) (HERREN DRUGS PVT LTD) INDIA NEWBRIDGE INVESTMENTS LTD & PACS
609 MALABAR TRADING COMPANY LIMITED M/S M L LAXKAR, MAHESH KHANDELWAL & PACS
610 JK PAPER LIMITED JK PAPER EMPLOYEES' WELFARE TRUST
31
611 IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURES & PROJECTS LTD CHRYSCAP & CIFC
612 KERRY JOST ENGINEERING LTD (New Name:Tulive Developers) MR ATUL GUPTA & PACS
613 HUGHES SOFTWARE SYSTEMS LTD (New Name: Flextronics Software Systems) FLEXTRONICS SALES & MKTG (L-A) LTD. & PACS
614 STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LTD. INDIAN OILTANKING LIMITED
615 VALPLUS BIOTECH LTD MR CHANDER R SARAOGI
616 BIRLA GLOBAL FINANCE LTD TGS INVESTMENT & TRADE PVT LTD.
617 SANYEI MEDIQUIP LIMITED (New Name:India Nivesh Limited) SNEH SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD & PACS, NITESH KUMAR KABRA, NIRMAL PAREEK
618 BALAJI TELEFILMS LTD. ASIAN BROADCASTING FZ LLC

619 ADARSH PLANT PROTECT LIMITED MR NAISHAD N PATEL, ATISH N PATEL, KIRIT A PATEL
620 JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD & K.ENERGY (PAC)
621 STANDARD CABLES LIMITED (New Name:Savant Infocomm) SAVANT INDIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD.
622 RANE (MADRAS) LTD L LAKSHMAN, L LAKSHMAN (HUF), L GANESH & PACS
623 TTK HEALTHCARE LTD MR TTJAGANNATHAN & PACS, PARTNERS OF TTK & CO.
624 RANE ENGINE VALVES LIMITED RANE MADRAS LTD, RANE BRAKE LININGS LTD & RANE INVESTMENTS LTD
625 SKANSKA CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED (New Name:ITD Cementation India) ITALIAN-THAI DEVELOPMENT (ITD)
626 THE KAILAS RUBBER COMPANY LIMITED A V GEORGE AND CO LTD & PACS
627 MAGMA LEASING LIMITED STRATUS DEVELOPERS P LTD, MICROFIRM SOFTWARES, PAC
628 SWARAJ MAZDA LTD/ (SWARAJ VEHICLES LTD) CDC AGRI AND SARF & PACS
629 JAIPUR POLYSPIN LIMITED RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.
630 NETWORK LTD PPS TOWERS PVT LTD & PACS
631 BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD DHL EXPRESS (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD & PAC
632 LYONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. MR HITESH SHANTILAL SHAH/ MR DHAVAL SHANTILAL SHAH
633 DOWNTOWN TRADING AND INVESTMENTS LTD (new Name:Victoria Enterprises Ltd) MR KRISHNA KUMAR PITTIE/ MRS SANGEETA PITTIE
634 UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED SCOTTISH & NEWCASTLE INDIA LTD., SCOTTISH & NEWCASTLE INDIA PVT LTD.(PAC), SCOTTISH &
NEWCASTLE PLC (PAC)
635 ONDEO NALCO INDIA LTD /(NALCO CHEMICALS INDIA LTD) SUEZ
636 KRONE COMMUNICATIONS LTD (New Name:ADC India Communications) ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC
637 MAX INDIA LIMITED PARKVILLE HOLDINGS LTD. & PACS
638 SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD LIGHTWOOD INVESTMENT LTD
639 INNOVATION MEDI EQUIP LTD. MR MUBARAK ALI / MRS ANARKALI BEGUM / MR SATHISH K
640 BHILWARA TEX-FIN LTD. SAINIK MINING & ALLIED SERVICES PVT LTD.
641 MARUDHAR FOOD & CREDIT LTD. MR MADAN MOHAN MOHANKA, MANJU, MEHUL & MANISH
642 CONRAD TELEFILMS LTD. MR PRAVEEN ARORA & MR SOM ARORA
643 QUANTUM SOFTECH LTD. MR P KODANDA RAMBABU, MRS KODALI VIJAYA RANI
644 ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD HOLDCEM CEMENTS INDIA PVT LTD., HOLDERIND INVESTMENTS LTD. (HOLCIM MAURITIUS),
AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA LTD., GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. (GACL)
645 SUNSHIELD CHEMICALS LTD. MR AMIT CHAMPAKLAL CHOKSEY, AEONIAN INVESTMENTS CO LTD., ABHIRAJ TRADING AND
INVESTMENTS PVT LTD.
646 SHRI CHLOCHEM LTD. MR KANDARP K AMIN/MRS ARCHNA K AMIN/MR ARCHIT AMIN
32
647 ASAHI FIBRES LTD. JAYBHARAT SAREES LTD.
648 CENTURY ENKA LTD ACORDIS BV, ACORDIS OVERSEAS INVESTMENT BV
649 THE METHONI TEA COMPANY LTD., INDISTOCK PVT LTD. & THIRD WAVE CREDIT & COMM. PVT
650 APTECH LTD (APTECH ON-LINE LTD / APTECH TRAINING LTD) SSI LTD, SHRI K S AGHORAM
651 MATRIX LABORATORIES LTD (HERREN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD) (HERREN DRUGS PVT LTD) N PRASAD, G2 CORPORATE SERVICES LTD, M RAVINDER,, ALL TIME FORMULATIONS LTD
652 CARBON SPECIALITIES LTD/ (D. P. REAL ESTATE AND FINANCE LTD) SHRI KISHORE KUMAR KAYA, PANKAJ KUMAR KAYA
653 ALPHA DRUGS INDIA LTD PUNJAB CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD
654 VICKERS SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD / (VICKERS SPERRY OF INDIA LTD) EATON HYDRAULICS INC.,USA, EATON CORPORATION (PAC)
655 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, SAMRUDDHI SWASTIK TRADING AND INVESTMENTS LTD
656 WESTERN MINISTIL LTD / (WESTERN MINISTIL PRIVATE LTD) GIRDHAR MORARI AGRO RESEARCH PVT LTD, RAJENDRA CHATURVEDI (PAC), GIRDHARI LAL
CHATURVEDI, DINANATH BOHRE
657 EASTCOAST STEELS LTD GIRDHAR MORARI AGRO RESEARCH PVT LTD, SHRI RAJENDRA CHATURVEDI (PAC), SHRI GIRDHARI
LAL CHATURVEDI (PAC), SHRI DINANTH BOHRE
658 YOKOGAWA BLUE STAR LTD / (YOKOGAWA KEONICS LTD) YOKOGAWA ELECTRIC CORPORATION
659 BHAGWATI RESOURCES LTD BALAJI ENTERPRISES, SALASAR ENTERPRISES, MAHADEO ENTERPRISES
660 WELCAST STEELS LTD. AIA ENGINEERING PVT LTD AND PACS, BHADRESH K SHAH, GITA SHAH,, SHIVASHISH TRADING PVT
LTD,, KISHANKRUPA TRADING PVT LTD,, AMIT S MEHTA, RAGHVENDRA TRADING PVT
LTD,LOVEKUSH TRDG PVT LTD,, VRINDAVAN ALLOYS PVT LTD, PARAMKRUPA TRADING PVT L,
CENTRICAST ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, SHRI PARYANK R SHA, SMT SONAL SHAH
661 AKHILESHWAR TEXPORTS LTD (New Name:Core Projects & Technologies Ltd) WISDOM TRADING LIMITED AND PACS, SHRI SANJEEV G MANSOTRA, SHRI NARESH S SHARMA,
SMT NEELAM S MANSOTRA
662 The AHMEDABAD VICTORIA IRON WORKS CO LTD KIRAN D SHETH AND PACS, JYOTI K SHETH, KUNAL K SHETH, NISHITA K SHETH (PAC
663 JAIN VANIJYA UDYOG LTD JAI BALAJI EXIM CORPORATION

664 SCHENECTADY-BECK INDIA LTD /(DR. BECK & CO. INDIA LTD ) New Name: Elantas Beck India ALTANA ELECTRICAL INSULTATION GMBH,, ALTANA CHEMIE AG, ALTANA AG
665 GALAXY MULTIMEDIA LTD (New Name:Baba Arts Ltd.) SHRI GORDHAN TANWANI
666 SAPTARISHI AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD CALIBRE REHABS LIMITED
667 SHARP TRADING & FINANCE LTD SUJIT KUMAR SINGH,, SHEKHAR KESHAV MADREKAR
668 PRABHAT (INDIA) LTD SURAJ PRAKASH BHAGAT, SMT LAJ BHAGAT
669 INDO GULF FERTILISERS LTD TGS INVESTMENT & TRADE PRIVATE LTD, HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD (PAC), INDIAN RAYON AND
INDUSTRIES LTD (PAC), GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD (PAC)
670 RAIPUR ALLOYS AND STEEL LTD/ (RAIPUR WIRES & STEEL LTD) New Name: Sarda Energy and Minerals CHHATTISGARH ELECTRICITY COMPANY LTD, CHHATTISGARH INVESTMENTS LTD, SARDA
AGRICULTURE & PROPERTIES PVT LTD (PAC), PRACHI AGRICULTURE & PROPERTIES PVT LTD (PAC),
KAMAL KISHORE SARDA (PAC)
671 KADRI MILLS (CBE) LTD, THE SHRI G KANNAPPAN, SHRI K GOV RAMASWAMY, SHRI G VIJAYAKUMAR
672 WPIL LTD (WORTHINGTON PUMP INDIA LTD/ JOHNSTON PUMPS INDIA LTD/) HINDUSTHAN UDYOG LTD (HINDUSTAN SHEET & METAL CO L
673 HUGHES SOFTWARE SYSTEMS LTD (New Name: Flextronics Software Systems) NEWS CORPORATION LTD.,THE, HNS MAURITIUS HOLDINGS (PAC), HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS
LIMITED (PAC), HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION (PAC)
674 ESCORTS FINANCE LTD / (ESCORTS LEASING AND FINANCE LTD/ ESCORTS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD) ESCORTS FINANCE INVESTMENTS & LEASING PVT LTD, ESCOTRAC FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT
LTD
33
675 NOBLE EXPLOCHEM LTD PRAKASH MAHESHWARI & SAMEER MAHESHWARI, PRAKASH MAHESWARI (HUF) (PAC)
676 SAN GEO SERVICES LTD (New Name:Sanguine Media Ltd ) SHRI C V RAVI
677 AMZEL AUTOMOTIVE LTD SALEEM FAZELBHOY, AMZEL PRIVATE LTD
678 GODAVARI FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD COROMANDEL FERTILISERS LTD
679 PUNJAB TRACTORS LTD CDC FINANCIAL SERVICES (MAURITIUS) LTD, CDC-PTL HOLDINGS LTD, SOUTH ASIA REGIONAL FUND,
LATHE INVT PVT LTD (PAC), CDC GROUP PLC (PAC), LATHE INVESTMENT PTE LTD (PAC
680 SWARAJ AUTOMOTIVES LTD CDC-PTL HOLDINGS LTD, CDC FINANCIAL SERVICES (MAURITIUS) LTD, SOUTH ASIA REGIONAL FUND,
LATHE INVT PVT LTD (PAC), CDC GROUP (PAC), LATHE INVESTMENT PTE LTD (PAC)
681 SWARAJ ENGINES LTD CDC FINANCIAL SERVICES (MAURITIUS) LTD, CDC-PTL HOLDINGS LTD, SOUTH ASIA REGIONAL FUND,
LATHE INVT PVT LTD, CDC GROUP PCL, (PAC), LATHE INVESTMENT PTE LTD (PA
682 SWARAJ MAZDA LTD/ (SWARAJ VEHICLES LTD) CDC FINANICAL SERVICES (MAURITIUS) LTD, CDC-PTL HOLDINGS LTD, SOUTH ASIA REGIONAL FUND,
LATHE INVT PVT LTD (PAC), CDC GROUP (PAC), LATHE INVESTMENT PTE LTD (PAC)
683 SOMAIYA ORGANICS (INDIA) LTD J. R. AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD

684 ISHWAR TEXTILES LTD (New Name:Neemtek Organic Products Ltd) INGA MANAGEMENT AND IVNESTMENT PRIVATE LTD
685 MILLENNIUM CYBERTECH LTD/ (MERCURY LEASING AND PROPERTIES LTD/ BRAHMA CAPITAL AND CORNHILL TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD, STARDOM TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LTD, RGV
SECURITIES LTD/BCS SOFTWARE LTD) PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD AND PACS
686 LOTUS CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD SHRI ALAPATI RAMAKRISHNA, SHRI DEVBHUKTUNI DURGA PRASAD
687 HERBERTSONS LTD K R CHHABRIA, M D CHHABRIA, VENNER INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT LTD (PAC), ALGID
INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT LTD (PAC), AIREDALE INVESTMNET & TRADING PVT LTD (PAC),
BEETHOVEN TRADERS PVT LTD (PAC), DARREL TRADERS PVT LTD (PAC), ., ., ., .
688 TATA INFOMEDIA LTD (New Name:Infomedia 18) ICICI EPAYMENTS LTD, INDIA ADVANTAGE FUND II (PAC), ICICI STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS FUND
(PAC), ICICI EQUITY FUND (PAC)
689 RAMA NEWSPRINT & PAPERS LTD THE WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD, SPECIALITY COATINGS AND LAMINATIONS LTD (PAC), BHARAT
SUGAR MILLS LTD (PAC)
690 MAXIMUS STEELS MANUFACTURING LTD JAYANTILAL H SHAH, MRS NINA SHAH, MRS KINJAL SHAH
691 HERBERTSONS LTD MCDOWELL & COMPANY LTD, PHIPSON DISTILLERY LTD, UNITED BREWERIES (HOLDIGNS) LTD (PAC)
692 DEVAKI HOSPITAL LTD (new Name:Chennai Meenakshi Multispeciality Hospital) MADRAS MEDICAL CARE & HEALTH CENTRE PVT LTD, DR K C REDDY, (PAC), DR. SALIM J THOMAS
(PAC), DR C M THIAGARAJAN (PAC)
693 PEARL ORGANICS LTD (new Name:Wanbury limited) WANDER PRIVATE LTD
694 DEVERSA GAS-CHEM LTD (New Name:Confidence Petroleum) NITIN KHAR, ELESH KHARA, RASILA KHARA, NALIN KHARA, NNV FINANCE LTD (PAC)
695 TRANSMATIC SYSTEMS LTD (new Name:Accel Transmatic) ACCEL LTD, SHRI N R PANICKER
696 DIL VIKAS FINANCE LTD SHRI PRANAV SANGHAVI, JYOTHI S PAI, SHANTI R PAI, BALAKRISHNA RAO
697 VIRAT INDUSTRIES LTD/ (ORAL HYGIENE PVT LTD) SHAPOORJEE N CHANDABHOY DESIGN PVT LTD, ARMAYESH IMPORTS AND EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD,
ARMAND N AGA (PAC)
698 AAKRUTI HOLDINGS LTD PRISM SOFTWARE LTD, PRADEEP H KOTHARI, A H KOTHARI, S P KOTHARI (PAC), H T KOTHARI (PAC)
699 ZIRCON TRADERS LTD SHRI DIPAK KOTHARI, SMIT DIPTI KOTHARI
34
700 SRF POLYMERS LTD/ (SRF CHEMICALS LTD) (New Name:Kama Holdings) BHAIRAV FARMS PRIVATE LTD, NARMADA FARMS PRIVATE LTD, SKYLARK INVESTMENTS &
TRADING PVT LTD (PAC), ARUN BHARAT RAM (PAC), DR BHARAT RAM, MANJU B RAM, ASHISH B
RAM (DEEMED P, KARTIKEYAN B RAM, DCM CONSOLIDATED LTD (DEEMED PAC
701 ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD SIERRA INVESTMENTS LTD, SHRI CHIRAYU R AMIN, SMT MALIKA C AMIN
702 FAL INDUSTRIES LTD STERLING INVESTMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LTD, SHAPOORJI PALLONJI & CO LTD (PAC), CYRUS
INVESTMENTS LTD (PAC), FORBES GOKAK LTD (PAC), FORBES ESTATES LTD (PAC), WARRIOR
INVESTMENTS LTD (PAC)
703 SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD / (SHRIRAM HIRE PURCHASE FINANCE PRIVATE LTD SHRIRAM CHITS & INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LTD
704 GESTETNER (INDIA) LTD RICOH COMPANY LTD, NRG GROUP PLC (PAC)
705 MAC INFOTECH LTD/ (HIRAMOTI FINANCE PVT LTD /HIRAMOTI FINANCE LTD) N V SUBBA RAO, N SIVA RAMA KRISHNA, N MADHAVI, T V RAO, ., P V D PRASAD, SUDHA SUNKARA,
P SRIMANNARAYANA, V RAMAPRASAD, .
706 ANDHRA PRADESH TANNERIES LTD BAMBOLLI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, ARATI S SARAN (PAC), URMILA V PANDIT (PAC), SMT
SHEFALI S SHAH (PAC), SMT GITA R PANDIT (PAC)
707 KAPASHI COMMERCIAL LTD SHRI SEVANTILAL S KAPASHI, SHRI PARESH S KAPASHI, SHRI INDUBHAI S KAPASHI & NIMISH I
KAPASHI
708 KANOI PAPER & INDUSTRIES LTD (new Name: Agio Paper & Industries) MURARI LAL JALAN, ARROW SYNTAX PVT LTD
709 PLATY METALLURGICALS LTD (New name :Deepjyoti Textiles Limited) SANJAY MUNDRA, GOPALLAL MUNDRA, MANJUSHA MUNDRA, PREMLATA MUNDRA
710 ANAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD SHRI HEMANT PANPALIA

711 SNOWHITE APPARELS LTD / (SNOWHITE APPARELS PVT LTD) SHRI SURINDER SINGH KHERA, GURKIRAT S KHERA, GURMINDER S KHER (PAC), SMT HARKIRAN
KHERA, SUKHWANT KHERA, HARKIRAN KHERA, MS ROOPKIRAN SARAON
712 SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD MUKUND CHOUDHARY, KAPIL CHOUDHARY, AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY
713 KUTCH SALT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD. FRIENDS BULK HANDLERS LTD
714 NEW SAGAR TRADING COMPANY LTD KISHOR M SHAH, PANKAJ K SHAH, RAJIV K SHAH
715 THE KIRLAMPUDI SUGAR MILLS LTD SHRI C RAGHURAM
716 RAJMATA INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE LTD (new Name: Mediaone Global Entertainment) SHRI K C K A GUPTA, SHRI M VENKATESWARA RAO, SHRI K SRINIVAS GUPTA
717 VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD (New Name: Tata Communications) PANATONE FINVEST LTD (STORMY INVESTMENTS & FINANCE, TATA SONS LTD (PAC), THE TATA
POWER COMPANY LTD (PAC), THE TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD (PAC), TATA INDUSTRIES
LTD (PAC)
718 ETC NETWORKS LTD/ (BEEHIVE TRADING AND EXPORTS LTD) ZEE TELEFILMS LTD
719 IBP CO LTD/ (INDO-BURMA PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD) INDIAN OIL CORORATION LTD
720 LIBERTY OIL MILLS LTD / (LIBERTY OIL MILLS PVT LTD.) LIBERTY INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, SHRI PARVEZ HAMZA KADER AND PACS
721 KAYCEE INDUSTRIES LTD CMS TRAFFIC SYSTEMS LTD, JESS PRASAD ENGINEERING AND METALLURGICAL SERVICES
722 BHAGWAN INVESTMENTS & TRADES LTD (New Name:VYAPAR INDUSTRIES LTD) SHRI HUSSAIN ABBAS RASSAI, SMT SAKINA AKEEL RASSAI
723 VMC SOFTWARE LTD (new Name:Avance Technologies) JUVENILE CAPFIN PRIVATE LTD AND PACS
724 FINE DRUGS AND CHEMICALS LTD VORIN LABORATORIES LTD, OSCAR INVESTMENTS LTD, RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD (PAC), VIDYUT
INVESTMENTS LTD (PAC), SOLUS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD (PAC)
725 HARITA FINANCE LTD /(HARITA FINANCE AND SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD) TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD, TVS INVESTMENTS LTD (PAC), LAKSHMI AUTO COMPONENTS LTD
(PAC), ANUSHA INVESTMENTS LTD (PAC)
726 SOM CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS LTD /(AXOM PIPES N TUBES LTD) SHRI SOM ARORA, SMT POOJA ARORA
35
727 PADMALAYA TELEFILMS LTD/ (RAJIV RATNA CINE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD) PADMALAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LTD, ZEE TELEFILMS LTD
728 NAM CREDIT & INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (New Name:BGIL Films and Technologies) SHRI RANJINDER PAUL JINDAL, SHIV MITTER JINDAL, SHRI KIRAN JINDAL
729 SAMPARK TRADING & FINANCE COMPANY LTD SHRI SURESH CHAND AGARAWAL, SMT ANJU AGARAWAL
730 RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD /(RECKITT & COLMAN OF INDIA LTD) RECKITT BENCKISER PLC, LANCASTER SQUARE HOLDINGS SL
731 HARIJAY INDUSTRIES LTD (new Name:Empower Industries) SHRI DEWANG MASTER
732 AXLES INDIA LTD SPICER HEAVY AXLE HOLDINGS INC.,, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD, WHEELS INDIA LTD, DANA
CORPORATION (PAC)
733 ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LTD/ ASTRA-IDL LTD ASTRA PHARMACEUTICALS AB, ASTRAZENECA AB (PAC)
734 RAYMED LABS LTD / (RAYMED LABS PRIVATE LTD) SHRI AJAI GOYAL
735 HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD STERLITE OPPORTUNITIES AND VENTURES LTD, STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD (PAC), STERLITE
OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD (PAC)
736 WARTSILA INDIA LTD (WARTSILA DIESEL INDIA LTD) (WARTSILA NSD INDIA LTD) WARTSILA CORPORATION, WARTSILA TECHNOLOGY OY AB
737 SUNFLEX FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS LTD SHRI SHEKHAR J MEHTA, ANMOL MEHTA, SHAURAT MEHTA, SHRI SAILESH J MEHTA
738 SHINE COMPUTECH LTD (RAVRAJ INTERNATIONAL LTD) SHRI K SUDHIR RAO, SHIR K SUHAN RAO, J THIRUPATHI RAO (PAC)
739 OSWAL SUGARS LTD YADU SUGAR LTD, DHARAM PAL SINGH, JITENDER SINGH (PAC), SMT U YADAV,, VIKAS SINGH (PAC)
740 INDIAN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS LTD INDMET COMMODITIES PRIVATE LTD, B PANDA & CO PVT LTD (PAC)
741 CIBA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS (INDIA) LTD CIBA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS HOLDING INC, CIBA INDIA PRIVATE LTD (PAC), CIBA SPECIALTY
CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL INC (PAC)
742 GERMAN REMEDIES LTD CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD, RECON HEALTHCARE LTD (PAC)
743 INOX LEASING AND FINANCE LTD INOX CHEMICALS PRIVATE LTD, SIDDHO MAL AIR PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD, SIDDHO MAL
INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LTD, SIDDHAPAVAN TRADING AND FINANCE PRIVATE LTD, SITASHRI
TRADING AND FINANCE PRIVATE LTD, DEVANSH TRADING AND FINANCE PRIVATE LTD AND PACS,
MR LALIT KUMAR JAIN AND FLY MEMBERS AND HUFS
744 REVATHI EQUIPMENT LTD (REVATHI-CP EQUIPMENT LTD) UTKAL INVESTMENTS LTD
745 CARRIER AIRCON LTD (BRISTOL COMPRESSORS (INDIA) PVT LTD CARRIER INTERNATIONAL MAURITIUS LIMITED, CARRIER CORPORATION (PAC), CARRIER
SINGAPORE (PTE) LTD (PAC)
746 VASUDHA TRADING & AGENICES LTD (New Name:Datamatics Global Services Ltd) ANJU ADVISORY SERVICES PVT LTD
747 DLF UNIVERSAL LTD {AMERICAN UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC (INDIA) LTD} {DLF UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC LTD} SHRI RAJIV SINGH, DLF INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, VISHAL FOODS AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,
RAISINA AGENCIES & INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, RENKON AGENCIES PVT LTD, REALEST BUILDERS &
SERVICES LTD
748 CENTURY LAMINATING CO LTD/ (H N LOHIA (AGENCIES) PVT LTD SRI PRASAN LOHAI, PRAKASH LOHIA, BIKASH LOHAI, RUCHIRA LOHIA
749 AVON PROPERTIES LTD (New Name:CNI Research) NEIL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD (KRISH REALTORS PV, MR KISHOR P OSTWAL, MRS SANGITA
K OSTWAL (PAC), SHRI DEVEN JHAVERI, MRS RUPA JHAVERI (PAC)
750 MEDICORP TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD MATRIX LABORATORIES LTD

751 INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LTD RELIANCE PETROINVESTMENTS LTD, RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, (PAC), RELIANCE VENTURES LTD,
RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD (PAC), RELIANCE POWER VENTURES LTD
752 GARNET PAPER MILLS LTD (new Name: K Sera Sera Productions Ltd) MONALISA MOULDINGS PVT LTD, AZAM PLASTICS PVT LTD, MOHAMMED ASLAM KHAN,
MOHHAMMED A HAN & OTHERS(PACS
36
753 SUVRIDHI FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD /(SUVRIDHI FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD) SHRI MOHAN AGARWAL, SHRI GAURI SHANKAR AGARWALA, SMT KALAWATI AGARWAL, SMT
PRATIBHA AGARWAL, BHAIRAV LEASING & FINANCE PVT LTD
754 MAYFAIR INDIA LTD SRI SHANKAR LAL DHANUKA, SRI CHANDRA KUMAR DHANUKA, SMT ARUNA DHANUKA
755 HUGHES TELE.COM (INDIA) LTD / HUGHES ISPAT LTD (New Name: TATA TELESERVICES LTD) TATA TELESERVICES LTD, TATA SONS LTD (PAC), TATA INDUSTRIES LTD (PAC), TATA POWER CO LTD
(PAC)
756 SYNERGY MULTIBASE LTD (New Name:Multibase India) DOW CORNING FRANCE S.A.S, DOW CORNING CORPORATION, MULTIBASE S.A.S (PAC)
757 SANTOSH INDUSTRIES LTD/SANTOSH INDUSTRIES PVT LTD SHRI BUDHAMALL DUGAR, SMT SOHANI DEVI DUGAR
758 RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD /(RECKITT & COLMAN OF INDIA LTD) RECKITT BENCKISER PLC, LANCASTE SQUARE HOLDINGS SL (PAC)
759 BHANDARI CONSULTANCY AND FINANCE LTD SHRI ABHIMANYA SINDHU, SMT EKTA SINDHU (PAC), ABHIMANYU SINDHU (HUF) PAC
760 KODAK INDIA LTD/ (INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC CO LTD) KODAK LTD, EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY (KODAK US)
761 MADURA COATS LTD/ COATS VIYELLA INDIA LTD J & P COATS LTD, COATS PLC (PAC)
762 VGR CONSTRUCTION LTD (New Name: Netlink Solutions (India) Ltd) ADITYA FINCAP PVT LTD, MINESH MODI (PAC), RUPABEN MODI, UMESH MODI, MRS MANISH MODI
(PAC), RUPABEN MODI (PAC), MANISHA MODI (PAC)
763 INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD (INDAL) HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD, RENUKESHWAR INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD (PAC)
764 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (INDIA) LTD OTIS MAURITIUS LTD, OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (NEW JERSEY) (PAC), OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY
(S) PTE LTD (PAC), OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (H.K.) LTD (PAC)
765 GINI SILK MILLS LTD SHRI VISHWANATH HARLALKA, SHRI DEEPAK HARLALKA AND PACS
766 AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE INDIA LTD (HOECHST SCHERING AGREVO LTD/AGREVO INDIA LTD) BAYER CROPSCIENCE AG, BAYER AG (PAC), BAYER CROPSCIENCE SA (AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE SA)
(PAC, AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE GMBH (PAC)
767 ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LTD/ ASTRA-IDL LTD ASTRA PHARMACEUTICALS AB, ASTRAZENECA AB (PAC)
768 BSL LTD / (BHILWARA SYNTHETICS LTD) KOLMAK CHEMICALS LIMITED & PACS, SUPER JUPITER COURIER PVT LTD, SUN BIOTECHNOLOGY
LTD, SUPARSHWA DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, NAMOKAR VINIMAY PVT LTD, REMARKABLE FISCAL
COMPANY PVT LTD, PILOT CONSULTANTS LTD
769 EPIC ENZYMES, PHARMACEUTICALS & INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS LIMITED SHRI P K MAHAJAN, SHRI VINEET SUCHANTI (PAC), KEYNOTE CORPORATE SERVICES LTD (PAC)
770 WARTSILA INDIA LTD (WARTSILA DIESEL INDIA LTD) (WARTSILA NSD INDIA LTD) WARTSILA CORPORATION, WARTSILA TECHNOLOGY OY AB (PAC)
771 BHARAT HOTELS LTD DEEKSHA HOLDING LTD, LALIT SURI, RAMESH SUIR, JYOTSNA SURI, RITU SURI,, DEEKSHA SURI,
KESHAV SURI (PAC), RESPONSIBLE BUILDERS PVT LTD, JYOTSNA HOLDINGS PVT, PREMIUM EXPORTS
LTD, PREMIUM HOLDINGS LTD (PAC), MERCANTILE CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,, RAJ
KUMARI NANDA, TIKA H SINGH (PAC)
772 VICKERS SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD / (VICKERS SPERRY OF INDIA LTD) EATON HYDRAULICS INC, EATON CORPORATION (PAC)
773 AHMEDNAGAR FORGINGS LTD AMTEK AUTO LTD
774 SNOWTEMP ENGINNERING COMPANY LIMITED (YORK INDIA LTD) SMT ANILA MAHAJAN, SHRI LALIT MAHAJAN, NITIN MAHAJAN, JATIN MAHAJAN,, LALIT MAHAJAN
FAMILY TRUST, LALIT MAHAJAN & SONS(H, LALIT NITIN MAHAJAN (HUF), LALIT JATIN MAHAJAN
(HUF), J MITRA & SONS (HUF)
775 WIMPER TRADING LTD (New Name:Deccan Gold Mines Ltd. (DGML)) RAMA MINES (MAURITIUS) LTD
37
776 SOUTH EAST ASIA MARINE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD (PEERLESS SHIPPING & OILFIELD SERVICES TECHNIP-COFLEXIP, COFLEXIP STENA OFFSHORE (MAURITIUS) LTD
LTD / PEERLESS LEASING PRIVATE LTD)
777 JOHN FOWLER (INDIA) LTD SHRI R B BARWALE
778 VASUDHA TRADING & AGENICES LTD (Datamatics Global Services Ltd) ANJU ADVISORY SERVICES PVT LTD, RAHUL KANODIA - HUF, MS. AMRITA BHOGILAL, MS AMEESHA
DALMIA, MAHABIR P GUPTA, VANMALA KOTHARI
779 SYNGENTA INDIA LTD (NOVARTIS AGRIBUSINESS INDIA PVT LTD / SYNGENTA INDIA PVT LTD) SYNGENTA SOUTH ASIA AG, SYNGENTA AG (PAC), SYNGENTA PARTICIPATIONS AG (PAC)
780 ROCHEES BREWERIES LTD MYSORE BREWERIES LTD, SAB MILLER INDIA LTD, SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES INTERNATIONAL
(ASIA) B.V., SAB MILLER PLC, PALS DISTRILLERIES LTD
781 WIDIA (INDIA) LTD (manufactures a wide range of mining tools ) KENNAMETAL INC
782 THE RAJA BAHADUR MOTILAL POONA MILLS LTD. SAI RADHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD
783 MOHINDRA PAPERS LTD (New Name:Nuway Organic Naturals (India) Ltd) R D M TRADERS (P) LTD, GURSHARAN KAUR, SHRI R SINGH, RAVINDER NARANG(PAC), SHRI
DILVINDER SINGH, SMT SONIA NARANG (PAC), SHRI MANMINDER SINGH, ANCHAL NARANG, SMT
DAISY SINGH (PAC)
784 SKOL BREWERIES LTD SHAW WALLACE BREWERIES LTD (OVERSEAS TRANSPORT COM
785 BSES LTD (New Name: Reliance Infrastructure) RELIANCE POWER VENTURES LTD, RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, RELIANCE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENTS
& HOLDINGS LTD
786 FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD (PRECISION BEARINGS INDIA LTD / FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD) INA VEMOGENSVERWALTUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH, FAG KUGELFISCHER GEORG SCHAEFER AG
(PAC)
787 THE RAI SAHEB REKHCHAND MOHOTA SPG. & WVG. MILLS LTD VAIBHAV TEXTILES PVT LTD, SHREE VINAY WASTA RECLAMATIONS PVT LTD (PAC), VIBHA
SYNTHETICS PVT LTD (PAC), GIRDHARDAS MOHOTA (PAC), BASANT KUMAR MOHOTA (PAC),
RANCHODDAS MOHOTA (PAC), VINOD KUMAR MOHOTA (PAC), VINAY KUMAR MOHOTA (PAC),
SHANTILAL SANGHVI (PAC), VINEET KUMAR MOHOTA (PAC)
788 INSILCO LIMITED RAG BETEILIGUNGS-GMBH, RAG AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (PAC), RAG PROJEKTGESELLSCHAFT MBH
(PAC)
789 ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD/ (ATLAS COPCO PVT LTD ) ATLAS COPCO AB, CHICAGO PNEUMATIC INTERNATIONAL INC (PAC)
790 BSEL INFORMATION SYSTEM LTD (new Name:BSEL Infrastructure Realty) CONTACT CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT LTD, KIRIT R KANAKIYA AND OTHERS (PACS)
791 KAPIL COTEX LTD S.R.V.TELECOM PVT LTD, E K SURENDRAN, E K SANJEEV (PAC), Y NIRMALA REDDY, M VASUDEESHA,
C K VINCENT, M SUDARSHANA, V S PRASAD
792 PARRY AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. NEW AMBADI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD
793 SHANTIVIJAY JEWELS LTD. SHRI BIMALCHAND GODHA, RAJRANI GODHA, P K GODHA, ANURAG GODHA, NAMITA GODHA
794 BALWAS E-COM INDIA LTD (GLOBAL E-COM (INDIA) PVT LTD) (new Name: IT People India) IT PEOPLE PRIVATE LTD
795 KWALITY DAIRY (INDIA) LTD GULSHAN DHINGRA, KRISHAN DHINGRA, NARESH DHINGRA, SANJAY DHINGRA
796 ACE INDIA LTD VED P NARULA
797 MJP LEASING LTD CONCEPT COMMUNICATION LTD
798 EICHER LTD (ROYAL ENFIELD MOTORS LTD) EICHER GOODEARTH LTD, EICHER INTERNATIONAL LTD AND PACS
799 JAYBHARAT SAREES LTD (CLASSIC SYNTHETICS & SILK MILLS LTD) SHRI SAURABH TAYAL
800 RRM SHARES & SECURITIES LTD /(ZIRCON INFIN LTD) SRI GANESH PRASAD GUPTA, MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, SRI RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA, PRAMOD
KUMAR GUPTA, MAHESH PRASAD GUPTA, TAPESHWARI PRASAD GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA,
SURESH PRASAD GUPTA
801 HINDUSTAN POWERPLUS LTD CATERPILLAR COMMERCIAL S.A., CATERPILLAR INC. (PAC)
802 GUJARAT JHM HOTELS LTD JHM HOTELS INC, HASMUKH P RAMA (PAC)
38
CHAPTER - 2
MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS IN INDIA
Mergers and Acquisitions (M & A) has been a business strategy to
increase the competitiveness of a company. Several industrial organizations in
India and abroad have been pursing M & A as a strategic move in their
business to seek growth. This chapter presents an overview of worldwide state
of affairs of cross-border M & A, recent trends in M & A in India and an
overview of Indian state of affairs in cross-border purchases and sales from M
& A perspective.
2.1. Introduction:
The Dutch East India Company, formed in 1602, is generally
acknowledged as the first multinational in the world and the first company to
issue stocks. Yet the East India Company formed in London in 1600 by a 15
year monopoly charter by British Crown with 24 directors and which played a
much bigger historical role deserves the title of the first multinational. As a
joint- stock company, it had initially 125 shareholders and a share capital of
£7200. The Company created trading posts in Surat (where a factory was built
in 1612), Madras (1639), Bombay (1668), and Calcutta (1690). By 1647, the
company had 23 factories, each under the command of a factor or master
merchant and governor if so chosen, and had 90 employees in India. The
major factories became the walled forts of Fort William in Bengal, Fort St
George in Madras, and the Bombay Castle. By the end of the 17th century, the
Company had huge territories consisting of the Presidencies of Madras,
Bombay, and Calcutta. The Company bought in India mainly cotton textiles,
39
silk, indigo, saltpeter and tea, in increasing quantities year after year while
importing bullion to pay for them. The Company‘s business soared in the
golden years of the 1680s with rich profits and dividends. The Parliament,
using its new-found power, gave monopoly charter to a ―parallel‖ East India
Company in 1698. A new ―parallel‖ East India Company (officially titled the
English Company Trading to the East Indies) was floated under a state-backed
indemnity of £2 million. The powerful stockholders of the old company
quickly subscribed a sum of £315,000 in the new concern, and dominated the
new body. The two companies wrestled with each other for some time, both in
England and in India, for a dominant share of the trade. It quickly became
evident that, in practice, the original Company faced scarcely any measurable
competition. The companies merged in 1708, by a tripartite indenture
involving both companies and the state. Under this arrangement, the merged
company lent to the Treasury a sum of £3,200,000, in return for exclusive
privileges for the next three years, after which the situation was to be
reviewed. The amalgamated company became the United Company of
Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies. Meanwhile cross holding of
shares took place and ultimately a merger was effected in 1709. The Company
made whopping profits of 30 Million Pounds in 30 years between 1713 and
1743 (East India Company, 1911).
In 1780, Tipu Sultan established state trading depots in various
locations of his kingdom. In addition, he also established depots in foreign
locations such as Karachi, Jeddah, and Muscat, where Mysore products were
sold. During Tipu‘s rule French technology was used for the first time in
carpentry and smithy, Chinese technology was used for sugar production, and
40
technology from Bengal helped improve the sericulture industry. State
factories were established in Kanakapura and Taramandelpeth for producing
cannons and gunpowder respectively. The state held the monopoly in the
production of essentials such as sugar, salt, iron, pepper, cardamom, betel nut,
tobacco and sandalwood as well as the extraction of incense oil from
sandalwood and the mining of silver, gold and precious stones. Sandalwood
was exported to China and the Persian Gulf countries and sericulture was
developed in twenty-one centers within the kingdom (Kamath, 2001). In 1799,
Tipu Sultan was killed by the army of East India Company and took over the
civil and administrative rights of Mysore.
A. & J. Stewart Ltd merged with Stewart Brothers and the Clydesdale
Iron & Steel Company becoming A. & J. Stewart & Clydesdale Ltd. but in
1898, the company took on another new name when it acquired the business of
James Menzies & Company becoming A. & J. Stewart & Menzies Ltd. The
Clydeside Tube Co. Ltd., makers of weld less tubes was acquired by Lloyd &
Lloyd in 1900 and was also brought into the merger. From 1 January 1903 the
company merged with English counterparts Lloyd & Lloyd Ltd. Stewarts &
Lloyds was created in 1903 by the amalgamation of two of the largest iron and
steel makers in Britain, A. & J. Stewart & Menzies Ltd, Coatbridge, North
Lanarkshire, Scotland and Lloyd & Lloyd Ltd, Birmingham, England.
In 1931, Unilever set up its first Indian subsidiary, Hindustan
Vanaspati Manufacturing Company, followed by Lever Brothers India
Limited (1933) and United Traders Limited (1935). These three companies
merged to form Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) in November 1956; HUL
offered 10% of its equity to the Indian public, being the first among the
foreign subsidiaries to do so (HUL, 2008).
41
The post Second World War (after 1945) era is regarded as an era of M
& A. Large number of M & A happened in industries like sugar, insurance,
banking, electricity, jute, cotton textiles and tea plantation. It has been realized
that, although there were a large number of M & A in the early post-
independence period, the anti-big government policies and regulations of the
1960s and 1970s fatally discouraged M & A. This does not of course indicate
that M & A were uncommon during the restricted regime. The restriction was
typically to horizontal combinations, consequence in concentration of
economic power to the common detriment. However, there were many
conglomerate combinations. In some cases, even the Government encouraged
M & A, predominantly for sick units. Further, the formation of the Life
Insurance Corporation (LIC) and nationalization of the life insurance business
in 1956 resulted in the takeover of 243 insurance companies. There was a
similar development in the general insurance business. The National Textiles
Corporation (NTC) took over a large number of sick textiles units (Kar, 2004).
In India movements of the companies from the point of view of M & A
and takeover can be seen in term of three waves. First Wave: The first wave of
takeover observed in India during 1980s and in the beginning of 1990s. It was
on the wholly divergent from current scenario. There were scarcely any
regulation and making an acquisition offer was not compulsory. Acquisition
was believed as a willing negotiation between buyer-seller. Typically two
types of cases were there. First, it was a case of foreign owner, who had
thinned his/her stake to less than 50% and as a result lost interest in Indian
company and sold it out to Indians, Secondly, because of the pressure of
42
financial crisis. During this era a number of cases were reported in which
acquirer was a strong person and losers were by and large small investors e.g.,
Tata‘s acquisition of Special Steel, Hindustan Lever Ltd‘s (HLL) acquisition
of Stepan Chemicals and the well-known ineffective unfriendly takeover bid
by Swaraj Paul to overpower DCM Ltd and Escorts Ltd. During this era
Swaraj Paul, RP Goenka, Manu Chabbria, Ambanis and Murrugappa group
were the pioneer players of capital market.
Second Wave: Second M & A wave in the Indian circumstance
however initiated after 1994. This was the era of development, combination,
and restructuring and a marked move from friendly takeovers to hostile
takeovers which were noticed during this period. In fact, Liberalization
Globalization and Privatization (LPG) of Indian economy, demolishing of
MRTP and Licensing system, improvement under Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act (FERA), availability of foreign funds etc., had escorted to an
increase in the number of mergers and takeovers during this period. The 1990–
95 period saw consolidation within India as a means to provide national
companies with ammunition to stand-up against foreign competition whereas
the next five years, i.e. 1995–2000, witnessed a significant presence of
Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in the Indian M & A scenario aiming at
establishing themselves in this developing market or furthering their already
existing presence. From a virtual trickle in the early years following LPG, the
transaction volume increased by 2.5 times from the first phase to the next, and
within this MNC involved deals grew 12 fold (Beena, 2000, 2004; Kale and
Singh, 2005).
43
Third Wave: The wave gaining momentum now is the third M & A
wave which was started in the year 2007. It is significantly different from
earlier two waves because role of Banks and Financial Institution System
(FIS) has become important now (Mahesh, 2005). In the year 2007 Indian
companies had executed some important acquisitions. Some of them are as
follows: Hindalco acquired Canada based Nezovelis. The deal involved
transaction of $5,982 million. Tata Steel acquired Corus Group plc. The
acquisition deal amounted to $12,000 million. Dr. Reddy‘s Labs acquired
Betapharm through a deal worth of $597 million. Ranbaxy Labs acquired
Terapia SA. The acquisition contract amounted to $324 million. Suzlon
Energy acquired Hansen Group through a contract of $565 million. The
acquisition of Daewoo Electronics Corp. by Videocon involved transaction of
$729 million. HPCL acquired Kenya Petroleum Refinery Ltd. The deal
amounted to $500 million. VSNL acquired Teleglobe through a contract of
$239 million.
The total number of deals in India was 287 from the month of January
to May in 2007. It has engaged financial transaction of US $47.37 billion. Out
of these 287 M & A transactions, there have been 102 cross country
transactions with a total valuation of US $28.19 billion. The volume of M & A
deals in India had expanded three-fold to US $67.2 billion in 2010 from US
$21.3 billion in 2009. Now, in 2012, M & A transactions amounting to $16.06
billion have been announced and likely to observe a host of M & A
transactions1. The total value of inbound deals, in February 2012 was $270
1
Mostly on account of Vendanta group (Sterlite Industries, Sesa Goa and Vedanta Resources
announced merger of Sesa Goa and Sterlite and the proposed consolidation of group structure). The
latest announcement is that of acquisition by Bain Capital of 30% stake in Genpact for $ 1 billion (ET,
A‘bad August 3rd 2012)
44
million by way of 9 deals as compared to $7.45 billion in the corresponding
period in February 2011 via 8 transactions whereas total value of outbound
deals in February 2012 was $441 million (5 deals) as against $206 million (11
deals) in February 2011. Indeed, India has appeared as the one of the topmost
countries with large number of M & A transactions. Cross-border M & A were
very rare in India till a couple of years ago but now, news of Indian companies
acquiring foreign establishments is relatively very common. The percentage of
cross-border transactions has climbed significantly in last 3 years.
2.2. Cross-border M & A: An Overview of Worldwide State of
Affairs
The cross-border business is classified into two categories, i.e. cross-
border purchases and cross-border sales. In this study, cross-border purchases
involve the purchase of a foreign company by an Indian company while cross-
border sales involve the purchase of an Indian company by a foreign company.
Purchases result into outflows while sales create Foreign Direct Investment
(FDI) inflows. The strength of cross-border M & A operations has been
significantly affected by the de-regulation of numerous government policies
during the neo-liberal economic regime. Previously, the companies were
widely using consolidation, but one of the characteristics of the present wave
of M & A is the presence of a large number of cross-border deals in the world
economy.
The strength of cross-border M & A operations evidenced an
exceptional outpouring since the mid-1990s and the same trend continued till
May, 2011 (World Investment Report, 2011). Earlier, overseas companies
were fulfilling their market spreading out approach through the introduction of
45
wholly owned subsidiaries in overseas regions (Jones, 2005), which has now
become a ‗subsequent best alternative‘ since it requires much time and effort
that may not go well with the changed international scenario, where the catch
phrase is ‗plaction‘, i.e., plan and action together, or else the next best
company will introduce the product and harvest the profit. Thus, cross-border
M & A became the ‗first-best opportunity‘ to the market leaders and others
depended on the ‗follow-the-leader‘ strategy (Beena S, 2010). In order to align
with changes in global scenario, Indian government has also implemented new
regulations and modified various regulations, like The Competition
Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business
relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011, Securities and Exchange Board
of India Act, 2009 (SEBI) provisions for acquisitions, The Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers)
Regulations, 2011 etc., which marked a paradigm shift in the operation of the
domestic companies. This exposed Indian companies for the free play of
market forces.
Figure: 2:1 Cross-border Sales and Purchases, 2002–May 2011
100
Developed economies: Net
sales
80 Developed economies: Net
Purchases
Developing economies:
60 Net Sales
Percentage
Net Purchases
40
South-East Europe and the
CIS: Net Sales
20 South-East Europe and the
CIS: Net Purchases
Unspecified: Net Purchases
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Expon. (Developed
economies: Net sales)
-20 Expon. (Developed
Year
economies: Net Purchases)
(Source: World Investment Report, 2005, 2007, and 2011)
46
Graph-2:1 shows that during the period 2002 to 2011 (Jan-May), the
developed economies were significantly high in both cross boarder sales and
purchases while the developing economies and the southeast Europe and the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) economies shown significantly
low ( Appendix table 2:1). In 2002, 87.2 per cent of the net sales and 92.36 per
cent of the net purchases were made by the companies operating in developed
economies while there was a decrease of about 5 per cent in net sales
(82.30%) as well as in net purchases (86.51%) in 2003. Whereas in 2004, a
slight increase was observed in net sales (82.99%) as well as net purchases
compared to 2003. However, in 2005 net sales increased to 87.3 per cent while
net purchases declined by 11.5 per cent but in 2006 reversed trend reported as
net sales declined by 3.04 per cent while net purchases increased by 1.75 per
cent. In 2007, net sales and net purchase increased by 2.91 per cent and 2.77
per cent respectively compared to 2006. However, in 2008 to 2010 marginal
decline was observed for net sales and net purchases. In 2011, net sales
increased by 10.3 per cent while net purchases shown decline by 3.26 per cent.
On the whole declining trend was noticed for net sales and net purchases of
cross-border M & A in developed economies.
In 2002, 12 per cent net sales and 7.45 per cent of net purchase were
made by developing economies while 0.78 per cent net sales and 0.19 per cent
net purchases were made by South-East Europe and the CIS economies (SEE
& CIS). In 2003, net sales and net purchases in developing economies as well
as in SEE & CIS economies increased compared to 2002. However, in 2004
slight increase was noticed in net sales but no change was observed in net
purchase of developing economies while decrease in net sales as well as net
47
purchase showed for SEE & CIS economies. Whereas in 2005 net sales
declined while net purchases increased in developing economies and SEE &
CIS economies. The decline in the net purchases of developed economy was
due to increase in cross-border purchases by developing countries in the year
2005. In 2006, net sales marginally increased for both countries but net
purchases registered an increase of 3.52 per cent in developing economies
while decline was noticed in SEE & CIS economies. However, in 2007 net
sales and net purchases decreased in developing economies while increased in
SEE & CIS economies. In 2008 net sales was increased by 5.02 per cent for
developing economies but marginal decline was noticed for SEE & CIS
(0.10%) economies while net purchases for both shown increasing trend.
Whereas in 2009, net sales showed slight rise but sharp increase showed in net
purchases in developing economies while marginal decrease noticed in net
sales and slight increase noticed in net purchases in SEE & CIS economies. In
2010, net sales were increase by 8.79 per cent while net purchases were
declined by 1 per cent. However, marginal decline was noticed for net sales as
well as net purchases in SEE & CIS economies. Whereas in 2011, net sales
declined by 13.08 per cent while net purchases was decline by 17.28 per cent
but net sales increased and net purchases decrease for SEE & CIS economies
(Table - 2: 1).
In the earlier years, trend of cross-border M & A in terms of purchases
by developed countries was marginally higher than their sales, indicating a
small part of capital flowing into developing countries through cross-border M
& A. On the contrary, cross-border M & A in terms of sales were slightly
48
higher than the purchases in the developing countries. The earlier trend was
interrupted in 2005 as in terms of purchases by developed countries were
marginally less than their sales, indicating a significant part of capital out flow
from developing countries through cross-border M & A, on the contrary,
cross-border M & A in terms of sales were slightly less than the net purchases
in the developing countries. Although the share of developing countries in the
total cross border M & A is lower, it has been increasing their net purchases in
the year 2009 onwards (Table - 2:2).
Graph – 2:2 shows that during the period 2002 to 2011 (Jan-May),
Europe was the top seller in cross-border M & A of companies in the world
with values of $2,15,453 million (66.81%) of the transactions in 2002 whereas
the share of North America was 27.77per cent ($89,550 million). However,
marginal decline was noticed in value of net sales i.e. $74,827 million but
percentage share increased to 30.61% in North America while decline of net
sales was noticed in value and percentage of Europe in 2003. The share of
Europe drastically increased to $5,59,082 million (62.68 %) while North
America‘s share was $2,65,866 million (29.81 %) in 2007. However, this
trend continued up-to year 2011 that showed a substantial improvement of
North America over Europe, the share of North America increased to 71.89
per cent ($1,36,322 million) compared to 29.94 per cent ($56,764 million) for
Europe. The other developed countries (like Japan, Australia, New Zealand,
etc.,) share of net sales value at $17,499 million (5.43%) and corresponding
49
value for 2011 is $3,472 million (-1.83%). The other developed countries sales
were fluctuating throughout the period.
Figure 2:2 Cross-border Sales & Purchases by Developed Economies 2002–May 2011
100
sales
80
Purchases
60 Europe: Net Sales
Percentage
Europe: Net Purchases

40
North America: Net Sales
20 North America: Net

Purchases
Other developed
0
countries: Net Sales
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Other developed
-20 countries: Net Purchases
Year
Interestingly, out of the overall cross-border purchases by countries
from developed economies, the share of two continents such as Europe
($231284 million (67.72%)) and North America ($91419 million (26.77%))
constituted 94.48 per cent of the values in 2002 and their dominance continued
till 2011 as net purchases of two continents represented 90.02 per cent.
However, their share got reduced substantially to 70.71 per cent in 2010. The
average share of two continents was 87.78 per cent. North America remained
far behind that of Europe during the entire period except in year 2004, 2010,
and 2011. In 2010 North America registered their share at around 55.03 per
cent while European share declined to 15.68 per cent from 63.88 per cent in
the year 2009. In 2011 both the continents were neck to neck as share of North
America was 47.26 per cent whereas 42.75 per cent for Europe. The cross
border net sales and purchase from Europe have observed an unpredictable but
50
decreasing trend during the period, which also indicated that the companies in
these regions are getting more responsive to cross-border transactions as a way
to further expansion (Table - 2:2).
Figure: 2:3 Cross-border Sales and Purchases by Developing Economies,2002-May 2011
120 Developing economies:

Net sales
100
Net Purchases
80
Africa: Net sales
Percentage
60
Africa: Net Purchases
40
Latin America and the

20
Caribbean: Net Sales
0 Latin America and the

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Caribbean: Net
Purchases
-20 Year
From the above graph – 2:3, it was found that during the period 2002
to 2011 (Jan-May), Latin America and the Caribbean was the top seller in
cross-border M & A of companies in the world with values of $22433 million
(50.51%) in 2002 whereas the share of the Asia continent was 38.88 per cent
($17263 million). However, increase in value of net sales noticed i.e. $21572
million and percentage also increased to 53.71% in Asia while decline of net
sales noticed in value and percentage of Latin America and the Caribbean in
2003. The share of Latin America and the Caribbean drastically decreased to -
$4358 million (-11.15%) while Asia‘s share was $38291 million (99.99%) in
2009. The growth rate of countries from the Asia continent reported better as
51
well as intra-Asia Pacific M & A also increased2. However, this trend
continued up-to year 2011 that showed a substantial improvement of the Asia
over Latin America and the Caribbean. The Africa and Oceania countries
share of net sales was 10.55% and 0.06% respectively in 2002. However, in
2003 to 2008 fluctuating trend was observed for net sales of the Africa and
Oceania while declining trend was noticed in the Africa from 2009 onwards.
Whereas in 2010 net sales increased to highest i.e. 10.89% but in 2011 it was
declined to 0.02% for Oceania.
Out of the overall cross-border purchases by countries from developing
economies, the share of two continents such as Latin America & the
Caribbean and the Asia constituted 92.62 per cent of the values in 2002 and
their dominance has been continuing till 2011 as net purchases of two
continents represented 86.94 per cent. However, their share got reduced
substantially to 78.68 per cent in 2005. The Latin America and the Caribbean
remained far behind that of Asia during the entire period. The cross border net
sales and purchase from Asia have observed an unpredictable but increasing
trend during the study period. However, the Africa, the Latin America and the
Caribbean and Oceania reported fluctuating trend during the study period.
However, there was a gradual decline in the share of developed countries over
time due to the entry of many MNCs companies from developing countries in
an extraordinary manner along with the existing MNCs search for new
markets (Beena S, 2010).
2
Sameera Anand, 2009, ―Asian M & A: The Days of Deal making are back‖, Financeasia.com,
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2009/gb20091021_639918.htm accessed on 26th
June 2012
52
Table - 2:3 and Table - 2:4 explain the number of cross-border deals by
region/economy of seller and purchaser from 2003 to 2011 (Jan-May)3. Cross-
border M & A in terms of (number of deals) net purchases by developed
countries were marginally higher than their net sales. On the contrary, cross-
border M & A in terms of (number of deals) net sales were slightly higher than
the purchases in the developing countries. In 2003, 3328 deals (72.95%) of the
net sales and 3778 deals (82.81%) of the net purchases were made by
companies operating in developed economies while marginal increase was
observed in the net sales (73.17 %) as well as in the net purchases (83.22 %) in
2004. In 2003, 1045 deals (22.91 %) of the net sales and 710 deals (15.56 %)
of the net purchases were made by the companies operating in developing
economies and corresponding cross border M & A deals for 2004 were 1251
deals (24.47%) and 817 deals (15.98 %) respectively. The net sales were 4.14
per cent and the net purchases were 1.62 per cent in 2003 for countries from
South-East Europe & the CIS, which was reduced by 2.37 per cent and 0.8 per
cent respectively in the year 2004.
In the year 2005 the net sales for developed countries were 3805 deals
(76.04 %), for developing countries were 1062 deals (21.22 %) and for South-
East Europe & the CIS were 137 deals (2.24%) while the net purchases were
3741 deals (74.76%), 765 deals (15.29%), and 51 deals (1.02%) respectively.
Marginal decline in the percentage of net sales of developed economies,
developing countries and South-East Europe and the CIS countries noticed in
the year 2006 whereas marginal increase in the percentage of net purchases
noticed for developed countries and South-East Europe and the CIS countries
but for developing countries slight decline was observed in the net purchases.
3
Before 2003, cross-border M & A measured by values in World Investment Reports, data of number
of deals by region/economy of sales and purchase was not available for 2002.
53
The number of deals is not a correct characteristic for evaluation of cross
border M & A, for example, China had 100 deals comprising value of $10
billion while Japan had only two deals amounting to $100 billion.
A. Industry-wise Intensity of Cross-border Deals:
The primary, manufacturing, and service sectors of the world economy
experienced an impressive increase in cross-border M & A deals in terms of
absolute value. It is evident from table - 2:5 and table - 2:6 that the primary
sector share in the net purchases was $9309 million (2.52%) and the sales was
$12751 million (3.45%) in 2002 and corresponding values of purchases and
sales were $29097 million (11.65%) and $48092 million (19.26%)
respectively in 2009. In 2011 the share of primary sector increased to around
17 per cent in cross border purchases while share of cross border sales
increased to around 20 per cent compared to 2009. Service sector was the
largest seller and purchaser of companies through M & A during entire study
period except in 2008 where manufacturing sector overtook service sector in
net sales as share of manufacturing sector was around 46 per cent and service
sector was around 41 per cent.
The share of manufacturing sector in cross-border M & A purchases
was 31.40 per cent and sales was around 36 per cent which reduced to 21.38
per cent and 32.91 per cent in 2007. Interestingly, in the year 2009 the
purchases were 15.07 per cent and the sales were 30.46 per cent for
manufacturing sector, the sharp decline in cross border purchases and sales
were around 20 per cent decline in purchases (34.63%) and around 16 per cent
decline was observed in sales (46.16%) compared to 2008. The manufacturing
and primary sectors have shown an unpredictable but increasing trend from
2010 onwards whereas service sector has registered decreasing trend from
2010 onwards. The service sector‘s share in cross border purchases was
54
around 61 per cent ($180159 million) and sales were around 55 per cent
($161959 million) in 2003, which increased to around 74 per cent and 64 per
cent respectively in 2005. Financial services were big giants dominating cross
border purchases from service sector in 2003 and financial services maintained
the dominant position throughout the period but slight decline in purchases
was noticed in 2011 (61.84%) compared to 2010 (75.7%). Other Services,
except financial were in dominating position in cross-border sales in 2003 and
maintained the domination until 2010 but decreased in sales in 2011 (29.08 %)
compared to 2010 (43.05 %) and financial services overtook the other services
in 2011.
2.3. Recent Trends in M & As in India:
Indian enterprises were subjected to strict control regime before 1990s.
This has led to haphazard growth of Indian corporate enterprises during that
period. The growth of Indian economy is also associated with the
implementation LPG policies by the Government since 1991 which influenced
the functioning and governance of Indian enterprises resulting in adoption of
different growth and expansion strategies by the corporate enterprises. In that
process, M & A have become a common phenomenon. M & A are not new in
the Indian economy. In the past also, companies have used M & A to grow
and now Indian corporate enterprises are refocusing on the lines of core
competence, market share, global competitiveness, and consolidation. This
process of refocusing has further been hastened by the arrival of foreign
competitors. In this backdrop, Indian corporate enterprises have undertaken
restructuring exercises primarily through M & A to create a formidable
presence and expand in their core areas of interest. The M & A of Indian
companies by other continent companies justified ―Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam‖
55
(From ―Vasudha‖, the earth; ―eva‖, emphasize and ―Kutumbakam‖, Family) is
a Sanskrit phrase that means that the whole world is one family.
Figure - 2:4 M & A of Indian companies by Continent
during the period 2002-03 to 2010-11
Merger and Acquisition of Indian companies by Continent
79.05
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00 Percent
30.00
20.00 8.98
5.86 3.37
10.00 0.12 2.62
0.00
Africa Asia- Australia Europe North Asia-India
Other America
(Source: Stock Exchan ge Board of India, http://www.sebi.gov.in)
The Indian economy has witnessed GDP increase during nineties
registering 10% growth and during last decade the growth rate has been 9.6%
in 2006-07 and has come down to 6.9% in 2011-12 (Economic Survey, 2011-
12). The period has witnessed increase in stock market business of Bombay
stock exchange on 2nd January 2001 BSE Sensex was 3953.22 while on 2nd
January 2012 Sensex was 15534, National Stock Exchange on 2nd January
2001 Nifty was 1254.25 while on 2nd January 2012 Nifty was 4640, and other
domestic stock exchange also highlighted growth in their respective index.
The number of M & A completed by Indian companies in India during the
period 2002-03 to 2010-2011 was studied but investments or purchases
completed by Indian companies outside India/foreign countries are not
56
included. Indian companies had 634 M & A and other continents companies
purchased 168 Indian companies.
Figure – 2:4 disclosed that around 79% companies acquired in India
belongs to India (it included companies registered in India) while 9%, 6%, 3%
and 2.6% companies belong to Europe, Africa, other Asian countries and
North America respectively. The percentages of Asia-India continent is very
high i.e. 79% as most of Indian companies acquired by Indian companies or
Indian Professional Individuals. The investment of companies from other
continents can be viewed better by ignoring Indian companies who had M &
A in the year 2002-03 to 2010-11.
Figure -2:5 M & A of Indian companies by Continent
during the period 2002-03 to 2010-11
Merger and Acquisition by Continent (excluding Indian

Companies)
42.86
45.00
40.00
35.00 27.98
30.00
25.00
20.00 16.07 Percent
12.50
15.00
10.00
5.00 0.60
0.00
Africa Asia- Other Australia Europe North
America
(Source: Stock Exchange Board of India, http://www.sebi.gov.in)
The figure – 2.5 provides percentage of M & A by overseas companies
from respective continents excluding companies of Indian origins. Europe had
57
major acquisitions in India, i.e., 43% and according to the World Investment
Report 2012, Europe‘s cross-border purchase was around 54% in the period of
Jan-2003 to May-2011 while Australian continent had only 1 acquisition in
Indian market and percentage was very low as only 0.6%. The African
companies had 28% and the North American‘s had 12.5% while other Asian
countries like Singapore, Japan, and Hong-Kong had 16.1% M & A in India.
Investment in India by companies from overseas countries clustered
under continents is highlighted in Table - 2:7, Mauritius had 100% (47 deals)
investment in India from Africa continents, but at total sample size, it was
represented by 6% only (chart-1). It indicates that only one country from the
African continent was very active in Indian market. Companies from Japan
had 33.33% (9 deals), Singapore had 40.7% (11 deals) investment while
United Arab Emirates (UAE) invested 14.8% (4 deals) and other Asian
countries (Hong Kong, Malaysia and Thailand) had 11.1% (3 deals)
investment in Indian Companies but at total sample size it was represented by
3.37% investment only (see figure-2.4).
The objectives of M & A by continents are shown in Table – 2:12. The
objectives of M & A were classified in three categories i.e. change in control,
consolidation of holdings and substantial acquisition. Out of 802 acquisition
deals, 528 (65.8%) numbers of acquisition deals were completed with object
of change in control while only 167 (20.8%) deals were completed for
consolidation of holding and only 107 (13.3%) acquisition deals were
successfully achieved objective of substantial acquisition. The companies
from the African continent acquired 47 Indian companies where 21 (44.7%)
Indian companies acquired with objective of change in control while 9
58
(19.1%) companies were acquired with objective of consolidation of holding
and under the substantial acquisitions object 17 (36.2%) acquisitions deals
were successfully completed. The companies from the Asia-other continent
completed 27 M & A deals, maximum acquisitions deals with the objective of
change in control i.e. 19 (71.4%), while 3 (11.1%) and 5 (18.5%) deals
completed with objective of consolidation of holdings and substantial
acquisition respectively.
The companies from Australian continent had only 1 acquisition that
was with the objective of change of control. The companies from European
continent had 48 (66.7%) acquisition deals under the objective of change in
control while 21 (29.2%) deals were completed with objective of
consolidation of holdings and only 3 (4.2%) deals were completed under
objective of substantial acquisition. The North America has also shown the
same trend as maximum acquisition deals completed by companies with
objective of change in control, out of 21 deals 13 (68.4%) acquisition deals
completed while 5 (26.3%) acquisition deals were completed with aim of
consolidation of holdings and 3 (14.3%) deals were concluded with aim of
substantial acquisition. The Indian companies acquired Indian targets also
witnessed the same trend as maximum acquisitions completed, 426 (67.2%)
with intention of change in control. The Indian companies acquired with
purpose of consolidation of holdings had 129 (20.3%) deals while Indian
companies‘ under the objective of substantial acquisition concluded 79
(12.7%) deals in domestic market. The investment made by all the continent
companies where maximum acquisitions successfully completed with intent of
change in control of target companies.
59
Indian M & A were showing up and down year after year during 2002-
03 to 2010-2011 that is highlighted in figure-3 and Table – 2:8. In the year
2008-09, 113 (16.1%) Indian companies were acquired that was highest and
only 58 (8.3%) companies were acquired in the year 2004-05; that was lowest
during the period under study. However, in the year 2009-10 M & A activities
decreased to 9.5% (76 deals) but in the year 2010-11 again upward trend was
noticed in Indian financial market i.e. 12.6% (101 deals).
The recession affected the world economy (World Investment Report,
2012;) and decrease in M & A activities was noticed across the globe and
Indian market was also hit by recession but M & A activities were not affected
significantly. Around 50% difference observed between highest number of
acquisitions and lowest number of acquisitions due to downfall in the
acquisition in India by Indian companies.
The companies from India completed 64 deals (10.1%) in the year
2002-03 while decline was seen in the year 2003-04 by 56 deals (8.8%) and it
was further decreased to 43 deals (6.8%) in the year 2004-05. However, 80
deals were completed by Indian companies in India showed increasing trend
during 2005-06 but slight decline was observed in 2006-07 by 74 deals
(11.7%). The increasing trend observed from 2006-07 onwards till 2008-09 as
86 deals (13.6%) and 90 deals (13.6%) were concluded respectively but
decline was noticed in the year 2009-10 by 30 deals and increasing trend
observed in 2010-11 by 21 deals. In the year 2003-04 100% companies
acquired by Australian companies. This shows that percentage is not the right
criterion for the evaluation as only one acquisition completed by Australian
company in India.
60
The companies from the African continent had increasing trend in
acquisition of Indian companies in the year 2002-03, 6.4% companies
acquired in India increased to 8.5% in the year 2003-04 which reached to 17%
in the year 2004-05. However, declining trend was seen from year 2006-07
onwards as percentage of M & A were 19.1%, 10.6%, 8.5% and 6.4% in the
years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively but companies
from African continent stepped up their M & A activities i.e. 10.6% in 2010-
11. The highest acquisitions concluded in the year 2006-07 i.e. 19.1% (9
deals) while the lowest number acquisitions concluded i.e. 3 (6.4%) in the year
2002-03 and 2009-10.
Figure - 2:6 Purchases of Indian Companies by Continent and Year
Year of M&A by Continent

140.0%
8.8%
120.0% 4.8%
1.4%
100.0% Asia- India
80.0% North America
100.0% 14.2%
12.6% Europe
60.0% 10.1% 12.8%
14.3% 19.0%
23.8% 6.8% 11.7% 13.6% 9.5%
9.5% Australia
40.0% 4.8% 15.3% 14.3% 4.8% 12.5% 4.8% 9.7%
4.2% 18.1% 11.1% Asia- Other
20.0% 11.1% 14.8% 5.6%
0.0% 22.2% 22.2%
22.2% 7.4% 14.8% Africa
7.4% 17.0% 19.1% 10.6%
6.4% 8.5% 12.8% 8.5% 6.4% 10.6%
0.0%
The companies from other Asian countries (excluding Indian
companies) had an increasing trend in acquisition of Indian companies. In
2002-03 no acquisition was completed but in the year 2003-04, 7.4% (2 deals)
acquisitions were completed while in the year 2004-05 it increased to 11.1%
61
and again raised to 14.8% in the year 2005-06 and same trend was also seen
from year 2006-07 to year 2010-11. No acquisition transacted in the year
2006-07 but in the year 2007-08, 7.4% acquisition completed by the
companies from the Asian continent, which was increased to 22.2% in the year
2008-09. However, decline was noticed in the year 2009-10 as only 4 deals
(14.8%) were completed by companies from Hong Kong, Malaysia and
Thailand in Indian market whereas increasing trend was noticed in the period
2010-11 by 6 deals (22.2%). The effect of global recession on the Asian
continent seen slightly as only 2 acquisitions were completed in the year 2007-
08 while 6 successful acquisitions were completed in the year 2008-09 and
2010-11 which was the highest number of acquisitions from the Asian
continents in studied period. However, the lowest number of deal noticed in
2003-04 as only two deals (9.5%).
The companies from European continent have an upward and
downward trend during the period under study. In the year 2002-03 the
maximum acquisitions i.e. 16 deals (22.2%) while only one (1.4%) company
purchased in the year 2003-04. In the year 2004-05, 3 (4.2%) companies
acquired which increased to 11 (15.3%) in the year 2005-06 but the number of
acquisitions gone down sharply to 4 (5.6%) in the year 2006-07. European
Continent showed declining trend from the year 2007-08 until the year 2010-
11. The companies from North American continent have also upward and
downward trend in the studied period but total number of deals was 21, which
is very low compared to acquisition by companies from the European
continent. The North American continent had maximum 5 (26.3%)
acquisitions deals in the year 2002-03 while purchased only one (5.3%)
company each in the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively while slight
increase was noticed during 2005-06 and 2006-07 with 3 deals (14.3%) and
62
decline of M & A deals were seen in the year 2007-08 (1 deal). However,
upward trend noticed in the year 2008-09 by 4 deals (19%) but sharp decline
observed in the year 2009-10 by only one acquisition deal by companies from
North America continent and 2 deals were concluded in the year 2010-11. The
companies from the North American and the European continents have similar
upward and downward trends when compared by percentage in the studied
period but numbers of M & A deals were different as the North American
companies had total 21 deals and the European continent had total 72 deals.
The North America hit badly due to recession in the year 2007 till mid-2009
and the same story of global recession was also highlighted in the figure – 2.6.
In the year 2007-08 only 1 (5.3%) company was acquired while in 2008-09; 4
(21.1%) Indian companies were purchased by companies from the North
America. An economic recession began in the United States in December
2007 and global recession ended in June 2009 as determined by the U.S.
National Bureau of Economic Research (Hulbert, 2010). The requisite two
consecutive quarters of growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) did not
actually occur until the end of 2009; it clearly showed the strength of Indian
economy compared to other developing or developed countries (Daniel, 2009).
Table – 2:11 presents data of offer price i.e. price paid per equity share
by acquired companies from all continents. The maximum number of
acquisition deals were concluded in the range of less than 50 rupees i.e.
64.2%. Companies from the African continent acquired 31.9% deals in the
range of less than 50, 27.7% acquisition deals in the range of 51-199, 25.5%
acquisition deals in the range of 200-399, 6.4% acquisition deals in the range
of 400-699 while 8.5% deals in the range of greater than 700. However, the
Asia other continent had 37% acquisition deals in the range of less than 50
63
while 40.7% deals in the range of 51-199, and 7.4% each acquisition deal in
the range of 200-399, 400-699 and greater than 700.
The company from Australian continent had only 1(100%) in the range
of 200-399. The European continent companies had 20.8% M & A deals in
the range of less than 50, while 31.9% in the range of 51-199 which was
highest acquisition deals ignoring acquisition by companies from the Asia-
India. However, the North American continent had 57.9% deals in the range of
less than 50 while 14.3% each deals in the range of 51-199 and 200-399
respectively whereas only one each deal in the range of 400-699 and higher
than 700. The acquisition from Indian companies also reported the same
trend, maximum M & A deals were in the range of less than 50 i.e. 89.7%.
Whereas 18.6% deals in the range of 51-199, it means in the range of 0-199,
approximately 92% M & A deals were registered.
Figure – 2.7: Average equity price paid by acquiring companies in India
Average equity price paid by acquiring companies
Asia- India 18.52

88.33
North America 28.00

116.87
Europe 185.13
379.52
232.00 Median
Australia 232.00
Mean
Asia- Other 76.50
176.39
Africa 153.00
262.31
All Total 26.03

128.56
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00
64
The averages i.e., mean and median of equity price by continents is
highlighted in figure – 2.7. The equity price data was very much scattered for
the whole sample, as overall mean was 128.56 while median was 26.03. It
was very clear from the median that 50% of acquisition were transacted where
equity price was less than 26.03. The average of equity price was 262.31
while median value was 153 for the African continent while the Asia-other
continent had higher variance compared to companies from the African
continent as mean value was 176.39 while median value was 76.5 only.
However, mean and median were equaled i.e. 232 in the Australian continent.
Whereas the European continent had highest average value i.e. 379.52 and
median 185.13 which highest value ignoring abnormal median value of the
Australian continent. It was very clear from averages that companies from the
European continent purchased high value equity shares. However, mean and
median values were 116.87 and 28 respectively for the North American
continent. It shows similar trend compare to overall means. However, mean
and median were 86.96 and 18 respectively for Indian acquisition deals. It
was the lowest mean and median in the given sample size.
2.4. Cross-border M & A in India: An Overview of Indian State of Affairs in
cross-border purchases and sales
Apart from the sales and purchases of the companies in domestic
market within India, an additional feature of the current wave of M & A is the
active participation of Indian companies in the worldwide market as a
purchaser of companies in other countries. The number and value of such
agreements are mounting over the years, definitely an indication of the modern
type of consolidation tactic of the Indian companies. In numerous cases this
has facilitated the Indian companies to turn out to be world leaders in the
relevant field of operation.

65
It is evident from Table - 2:16 that the total value of overseas M & A
purchases was around $80,438 million during period under study. The value of
cross-border M & A of Indian economy reported a fluctuating trend from year
2002 till May 2011. In 2002, net sales and net purchase were $1,698 million
and $270 million respectively. However, in 2003 cross-border net purchases
increased to $1,362 million while net sales declined to $949 million. However,
in 2004 net sales increased while net purchases declined about 26% while in
2005 again net sales declined but net purchases increased about 45%. In 2006,
net sales and net purchases increased by values i.e. $4,424 million and $6,715
million respectively.
Table - 2:16
Value of cross-border M & A of Indian economy, 2003-May 2011 (Millions of dollars)

Net Sales Net Purchases Total
Value 1698 270 1968
2002
(%) 86.28 13.72 100
Value 949 1362 2311
2003
(%) 41.06 58.94 100
Value 1760 863 2623
2004
(%) 67.10 32.90 100
Value 526 1877 2403
2005
(%) 21.89 78.11 100
Value 4424 6715 11139
2006
(%) 39.72 60.28 100
Value 4405 29083 33488
2007
(%) 13.15 86.85 100
Value 10427 13482 23909
2008
(%) 43.61 56.39 100
Value 6049 291 6340
2009
(%) 95.41 4.59 100
Value 5537 26421 31958
2010
(%) 17.33 82.67 100
Value 886 74 960
2011 (Jan-May)
(%) 92.29 7.71 100
Source: UNCTAD cross-border M & A database (www.unctad.org/fdistatistics).
66
However, in 2007 total value of overseas net purchases was $29,083
million while net sales were $4,405 million, highest during the period under
study. Whereas cross border purchases decreased and net sales increased in
total value of M & A in 2008, i.e., $13,482 million and $10,427 million
respectively. The decline in net purchases and increase in net sales showed
about 30%. However, sharp decline in net purchases noticed in 2009 ($291
million) while sharp increase was also noticed in net sales compared to 2008.
The cross border net purchases yet again picked up in 2010 as total value of
overseas M & A was $26,421 million but probably same trend was disrupted
in the year 2011 as till May 2011 total value of M & A was only $74 million.
Whereas cross border net sales noticed decrease in 2010 and 2011.
Interesting observation is that in maximum years, total value of cross-
border purchases was higher than total value of sales except for the year 2002,
2004, 2009, and 2011. The difference between the net purchases and the net
sales for the year 2005 was because of only 4 deals but the value was $1,351
million. Indian companies started doing well at cross-border purchases from
2005 and were able to achieve highest total value of $29083 million and net
sales were $4405 million in the year 2007. Indian company purchases of
foreign companies were reported an increasing trend and same trend was also
noticed in global cross-border M & A as developing companies also doing
well from last couple of years and started reverse trend where purchases from
developing economy is higher than their sales. This evidently points to the fact
that Indian companies now have a preference to expand their market outside
India adjacent to the domestic market.
67
The cumulative net purchase value amounted to $80438 million and
cumulative net sales amounted to $36661 million during the period under
study. The cumulative value of Indian acquisition outside India is double than
the cross border sales i.e. foreign companies acquisition in India. Interestingly,
the traditional top purchaser industries that were seen in the case of domestic
deals were not the top valued purchasers overseas M & A. Some of the top
valued purchases were, the acquisition of Corus Group Plc (UK based) by
Tata Steel Ltd. for $7.6 billion, the acquisition of Novels, a US based firm by
Hindalco Industries, Basel (US based firm) by Purnendu Chatterjee, a
petrochemical firm and Algoma Steel Inc, a Canadian steel producer by Essar
Steel Ltd, etc. The first three deals accounted for more than 20000 crores per
deal.
In telecom sector Vodafone acquisition of Hutch-Essar for total worth
of $11.1 billion, Telenor Asa acquired Unitech Wireless at cost of $1360
million preceded by Airtel acquisition of Zain‘s (Africa) for $10.7 billion as
well as acquisition of Telecom Seychelles Ltd for $ 62 million, GTL
Infrastructure Ltd acquired 17,500 telecom towers of Aircel Ltd for $1702.95
million and Reliance Industries has purchased 95% stake in Infotel Broadband
for $1032.26 million. In energy sector Reliance Natural Resources Ltd,
merged with its sister company Reliance Power (R-Power) for $10686 million.
Reliance Industries (RIL) acquired 45% stake in Texas, US based Pioneer
Natural Resources Co for $1320 million and 60% stake in the Marcellus Shale
Acreage in the US for $392 million and India‘s major Power producer JSW
Energy agreed to acquire Canada's CIC Energy Corp for $414.5million. The
number of big deals concluded by the Indian companies outside India clearly
indicates that Indian companies are playing key role in cross-border M & A
activities.
68
2.5. Conclusion:
From the above context, it is clear that the number and value of cross-
border deals are increasing as well as decreasing year after year with a major
share of it owned by the developed nations. The Europe was the major seller
as well as purchaser country and the North America picked up their sales in
the year 2011. Similarly, the difference between purchases and sales were
mostly encouraging to the Europe. Like the case of overall FDI, there has been
high national difference in attracting Brownfield FDI. This is very much
evident from the fact that the developed countries purchasers and sellers in the
world contributed more than 76 per cent of the cross-border M & A dealings.
On the other hand, there has been an increase in the cross-border M & A share
of developing countries over the years. If the world dealings were
concentrated on Europe and North America, the Asian giants in cross-border
deals were China, Singapore, India, and Korea. From the developing countries
cross border M & A share, the Asian countries contributed more than 65 per
cent of M & A transaction while Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean and
Oceania contributed remaining 35 per cent of cross-border M & A deals.
Sector-wise, manufacturing had been the largest seller, whereas
majority of the purchases were made by the service sector. The share of
primary sector remained too small throughout the studied period. Within
manufacturing, Drugs and Pharmaceutical industry, other chemicals, domestic
appliances and automobiles were the dominant sectors, and within services it
was banking and finance. Recently, there has been a rush among the
information technology firms to get into consolidation through M & A.
69
Compared to other sectors, automobiles, electrical appliances, machinery and
domestic appliances had high cross-border merger intensity, which means the
overall deals consist of more foreign partners compared to domestic partners.
In terms of the value of deals, majority of the deals were small, nevertheless,
there were a good number of mega deals, which had been responsible for more
than 87 percent of the total value involved. Mega mergers belong to banking
and finance, post and telecom, information technology; cement and their
foreign partners were mainly from USA and UK.
The occurrence of cross-border M & A deals in more technology
intensive sectors by companies from more industrialised countries adds more
flavour to this. The occurrence of large number of horizontal deals especially
the cross border deals raises another issue namely the foreign control.
Moreover, as it is evident from the data, a good proportion of the deals are
mega deals and many of them are repeatedly engaging in consolidation
strategies in order to grow faster than that of organic means. Thus, the current
surge in cross-border deals should be viewed in a multi-factor dimension,
which involves the push factors from home country such as market constraint,
need for low priced factors of production, increasing global competition as
well as the pull factors from foreign countries such as the wider market,
technology, efficient operation. This can be rightly considered as the response
of the firms to the aftermath of globalization in the form of less time and more
action.
70
It is evident that the world FDI flows are moving in tandem with the
movement of cross-border M & A. It is also observed that M & A are again
moving in line with the movement of the service sector M & A. Thus it can be
said that the service sector cross border M & A are the major force of the
world FDI during the study period. On the other hand, same trend is not fully
applicable to India as the country is still in an embryonic stage in cross-border
M & A. Although, in recent times a substantial percentage of the country‘s
FDI contributed by cross-border M & A.
71
2.1. APPENDIX
Table - 2:1
Value of cross-border M&A by region/economy of seller, 2003-May 2011 (Millions of dollars)
Net Sales
Region / economy 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (Jan-May)
Value (%) Value (%) Value (%) Value (%) Value (%) Value (%) Value (%) Value (%) Value (%) Value (%)
World 369789 100 296988 100 380598 100 462253 100 625320 100 1E+06 100 706543 100 249732 100 338839 100 224163 100
Developed economies 322502 87.21 244426 82.30 315851 82.99 403731 87.34 527152 84.30 891896 87.21 581394 82.29 203530 81.50 251705 74.28 189614 84.59
Europe 215453 66.81 142152 58.16 185809 58.83 316891 78.49 350740 66.53 559082 62.68 273301 47.01 133871 65.77 123354 49.01 56764 29.94
European Union 208785 96.91 126018 88.65 178772 96.21 304740 96.17 333337 95.04 527718 94.39 251169 91.90 116226 86.82 113539 92.04 47314 83.35
Austria 38 0.02 2115 1.68 1787 1.00 1713 0.56 1145 0.34 9661 1.83 1327 0.53 1797 1.55 432 0.38 6584 13.92
Belgium 5449 2.61 3182 2.53 2345 1.31 4277 1.40 1794 0.54 961 0.18 2491 0.99 12089 10.40 9406 8.28 799 1.69
France 30122 14.43 17495 13.88 20132 11.26 25172 8.26 19423 5.83 28207 5.35 4590 1.83 724 0.62 3785 3.33 4162 8.80
Germany 46605 22.32 25158 19.96 35868 20.06 47501 15.59 41388 12.42 44091 8.36 31911 12.70 12790 11.00 10893 9.59 1668 3.53
Italy 11608 5.56 15259 12.11 10953 6.13 40445 13.27 25760 7.73 23630 4.48 -2377 -0.95 1109 0.95 6762 5.96 3018 6.38
Netherlands 11037 5.29 9180 7.28 13321 7.45 21326 7.00 25560 7.67 162770 30.84 -8156 -3.25 17988 15.48 4002 3.52 2176 4.60
Sweden 7614 3.65 4321 3.43 10916 6.11 7892 2.59 15228 4.57 4563 0.86 18770 7.47 1098 0.94 1439 1.27 2711 5.73
United Kingdom 52958 25.36 31397 24.91 58107 32.50 93940 30.83 125421 37.63 171646 32.53 147748 58.82 25164 21.65 58309 51.36 13788 29.14
Other Europe countries like Czech Republic,
43354 Denmark,
20.76 17911
etc 14.21 25343 14.18 62474 20.50 77618 23.29 82189 15.57 54865 21.84 43467 37.40 18511 16.30 12408 26.22
Other developed Europe 6668 3.09 16134 11.35 7038 3.79 12150 3.83 17403 4.96 31363 5.61 22132 8.10 17645 13.18 9816 7.96 9451 16.65
North America 89550 27.77 74827 30.61 101574 32.16 79865 19.78 165591 31.41 265866 29.81 262698 45.18 51475 25.29 94737 37.64 136322 71.89
Canada 16317 18.22 5157 6.89 19635 19.33 12464 15.61 37841 22.85 100888 37.95 35253 13.42 11389 22.13 14470 15.27 19516 14.32
United States 73233 81.78 69670 93.11 81939 80.67 67401 84.39 127750 77.15 164978 62.05 227445 86.58 40085 77.87 80267 84.73 116806 85.68
Other developed countries 17499 5.43 27448 11.23 28467 9.01 6975 1.73 10821 2.05 66948 7.51 45395 7.81 18185 8.93 33613 13.35 -3472 -1.83
Australia 10653 60.88 9713 35.39 15128 53.14 2070 29.68 10508 97.11 44222 66.05 33530 73.86 22206 122.11 26530 78.93 -5871 169.10
Others (Israel, Japan, New Zealand) 6846 39.12 17735 64.61 13339 46.86 4905 70.32 313 2.89 22726 33.95 11865 26.14 -4021 -22.11 7083 21.07 2399 -69.10
Developing economies 44410 12.01 40166 13.52 54700 14.37 63801 13.80 89163 14.26 100381 9.82 104812 14.83 39077 15.65 82813 24.44 25473 11.36
Africa 4684 10.55 6427 16.00 4595 8.40 8685 13.61 11181 12.54 8076 8.05 21193 20.22 5140 13.15 7608 9.19 454 1.78
South Africa 3011 64.28 1563 24.32 1935 42.11 5092 58.63 1336 11.95 4301 53.26 6676 31.50 4215 82.00 3943 51.83 232 51.10
Other Africa 1673 35.72 4864 75.68 2660 57.89 3593 41.37 9845 88.05 3775 46.74 14517 68.50 925 18.00 3665 48.17 222 48.90
Latin America and the Caribbean 22433 50.51 12085 30.09 25284 46.22 14563 22.83 12768 14.32 20648 20.57 15452 14.74 -4358 -11.15 29481 35.60 9024 35.43
South and Central America 20313 90.55 10162 84.09 21067 83.32 12331 84.67 7401 57.97 18587 90.02 11020 71.32 -5190 119.09 26880 91.18 8405 93.14
The Caribbean and other America 2120 9.45 1923 15.91 4217 16.68 2232 15.33 5367 42.03 2061 9.98 4432 28.68 832 -19.09 2601 8.82 619 6.86
Asia 17265 38.88 21572 53.71 24768 45.28 40537 63.54 65250 73.18 71423 71.15 68909 65.75 38291 97.99 36706 44.32 15991 62.78
West Asia 458 2.65 1404 6.51 575 2.32 13358 32.95 22431 34.38 22602 31.65 16287 23.64 3543 9.25 4617 12.58 3969 24.82
Turkey 427 93.23 282 20.09 132 22.96 12771 95.61 15340 68.39 16415 72.63 13238 81.28 2849 80.41 2053 44.47 3574 90.05
United Arab Emirates 9 1.97 26 1.85 14 2.43 61 0.46 53 0.24 856 3.79 1225 7.52 300 8.47 376 8.14 176 4.43
Other West Asia 22 4.80 1096 78.06 429 74.61 526 3.94 7038 31.38 5331 23.59 1824 11.20 394 11.12 2188 47.39 219 5.52
South, East and South-East Asia 16807 97.35 20167 93.49 24193 97.68 27179 67.05 42819 65.62 48822 68.36 52622 76.36 34748 90.75 32089 87.42 12022 75.18
East Asia 9991 59.45 14105 69.94 16743 69.21 20998 77.26 25456 59.45 23390 47.91 17226 32.74 15741 45.30 16144 50.31 3097 25.76
China 2072 20.74 3820 27.08 6768 40.42 7207 34.32 11298 44.38 9332 39.90 5375 31.20 10898 69.23 5965 36.95 2825 91.22
Hong Kong, China 1865 18.67 6098 43.23 3936 23.51 5449 25.95 9106 35.77 7102 30.36 8707 50.55 3028 19.24 12024 74.48 264 8.52
Other East Asia 6054 60.59 4187 29.68 6039 36.07 8342 39.73 5052 19.85 6956 29.74 3144 18.25 1815 11.53 -1845 -11.43 8 0.26
72
Value of cross-border M&A by region/economy of seller, 2003-May 2011 (Millions of dollars)
Net Sales
South Asia 1923 11.44 1461 7.24 2218 9.17 738 2.72 7883 18.41 5371 11.00 12654 24.05 6094 17.54 5556 17.31 1170 9.73
India 1698 88.30 949 64.96 1760 79.35 526 71.27 4424 56.12 4405 82.01 10427 82.40 6049 99.26 5537 99.66 886 75.73
Other South Asia 225 11.70 512 35.04 458 20.65 212 28.73 3459 43.88 966 17.99 2227 17.60 45 0.74 19 0.34 284 24.27
South-East Asia 4893 29.11 4601 22.81 5232 21.63 5443 20.03 9480 22.14 20061 41.09 22743 43.22 12913 37.16 10389 32.38 7755 64.51
Indonesia 2790 57.02 2031 44.14 1269 24.25 6171 113.37 388 4.09 1706 8.50 2070 9.10 1332 10.32 1667 16.05 4496 57.98
Malaysia 485 9.91 84 1.83 638 12.19 1141 20.96 2509 26.47 6976 34.77 2781 12.23 354 2.74 3441 33.12 734 9.46
Philippines 544 11.12 230 5.00 733 14.01 -5180 -95.17 -134 -1.41 1165 5.81 2621 11.52 1291 10.00 30 0.29 661 8.52
Singapore 556 11.36 1766 38.38 1190 22.74 3933 72.26 2908 30.68 7426 37.02 14240 62.61 9693 75.06 4578 44.07 1162 14.98
Thailand 247 5.05 55 1.20 1236 23.62 -632 -11.61 3771 39.78 2372 11.82 142 0.62 346 2.68 457 4.40 388 5.00
Other South-East Asia 271 5.54 435 9.45 166 3.17 10 0.18 38 0.40 416 2.07 889 3.91 -103 -0.80 216 2.08 314 4.05
Oceania 28 0.06 82 0.20 53 0.10 16 0.03 -36 -0.04 234 0.23 -742 -0.71 4 0.01 9018 10.89 4 0.02
South-East Europe and the CIS 2877 0.78 12395 4.17 10047 2.64 -5279 -1.14 9005 1.44 30448 2.98 20337 2.88 7125 2.85 4321 1.28 9076 4.05
South-East Europe 1429 49.67 2355 19.00 5294 52.69 955 -18.09 3942 43.78 2192 7.20 767 3.77 529 7.42 266 6.16 97 1.07
Commonwealth of Independent States
1448
(CIS) 50.33 10040 81.00 4753 47.31 -6234 118.09 5064 56.24 28256 92.80 19570 96.23 6596 92.58 4056 93.87 8979 98.93
Russian Federation 1252 86.46 7880 78.49 4062 85.46 14547 233.35 6319 124.78 22529 79.73 13507 69.02 5079 77.00 2907 71.67 7502 83.55
Other CIS 196 13.54 2160 21.51 691 14.54 -8313 -133.35 -1255 -24.78 5727 20.27 6063 30.98 1517 23.00 1149 28.33 1477 16.45
Source: Calculated from UNCTAD cross-border M&A database (www.unctad.org/fdistatistics).
a Net sales by the region/economy of the immediate acquired company.
b Net purchases by region/economy of the ultimate acquiring company.
Note: Cross-border M&A sales and purchases are calculated on a net basis as follows: Net cross-border M&A sales in a host economy = Sales of companies
in the host economy to foreign TNCs (-) Sales of foreign affiliates in the host economy; net cross-border M&A purchases by a home economy =
Purchases of companies abroad by home-based TNCs (-) Sales of foreign affiliates of home-based TNCs. The data cover only those deals that
involved an acquisition of an equity stake of more than 10%.
73
Table - 2:2
Value of cross-border M&A by region/economy of purchaser, 2003-May 2011 (Millions of dollars)
Net Purchase
World 369789 100 296988 100 380598 100 462253 100 625320 100 1022725 100 706543 100 249732 100 338839 100 224163 100
Developed economies 341548 92.36 256935 86.51 339799 89.28 359551 77.78 497324 79.53 841714 82.30 568041 80.40 160785 64.38 215654 63.64 135369 60.39
Europe 231284 67.72 129371 50.35 176095 51.82 233937 65.06 300382 60.40 568988 67.60 358981 63.20 102709 63.88 33825 15.68 63981 47.26
European Union 214293 92.65 121208 93.69 164677 93.52 210111 89.82 260680 86.78 537890 94.53 306734 85.45 89694 87.33 17328 51.23 48869 76.38
Austria 1848 0.86 1744 1.44 5810 3.53 3871 1.84 6985 2.68 4720 0.88 3049 0.99 3345 3.73 1653 9.54 1275 2.61
Belgium 5474 2.55 3166 2.61 9309 5.65 4067 1.94 3640 1.40 8258 1.54 30146 9.83 -9638 -10.75 -238 -1.37 -176 -0.36
France 33865 15.80 8777 7.24 14994 9.11 58255 27.73 41030 15.74 78451 14.58 56806 18.52 41565 46.34 7157 41.30 -7468 -15.28
Germany 45110 21.05 19669 16.23 18613 11.30 4677 2.23 16427 6.30 58795 10.93 61340 20.00 24313 27.11 7138 41.19 1310 2.68
Italy 8242 3.85 4662 3.85 5167 3.14 23565 11.22 6887 2.64 55880 10.39 21358 6.96 17505 19.52 -5336 -30.79 672 1.38
Netherlands 14947 6.98 8506 7.02 9130 5.54 3140 1.49 51304 19.68 -3268 -0.61 53668 17.50 -3273 -3.65 14252 82.25 23065 47.20
Sweden 12231 5.71 4428 3.65 5906 3.59 11606 5.52 3199 1.23 32390 6.02 6108 1.99 9024 10.06 -128 -0.74 -4668 -9.55
United Kingdom 69220 32.30 56953 46.99 47307 28.73 50170 23.88 19900 7.63 222984 41.46 54653 17.82 -3546 -3.95 -4068 -23.48 50724 103.80
23356 Denmark,
10.90 13303
etc 10.98 48441 29.42 50760 24.16 111308 42.70 79680 14.81 19606 6.39 10399 11.59 -3102 -17.90 -15865 -32.46
Other developed Europe 16992 7.35 8163 6.31 11418 6.48 23826 10.18 39702 13.22 31099 5.47 52247 14.55 13015 12.67 16496 48.77 15112 23.62
North America 91419 26.77 98436 38.31 144068 42.40 94088 26.17 138576 27.86 226646 26.93 114314 20.12 40477 25.17 118670 55.03 57873 42.75
Canada 12990 14.21 16041 16.30 34047 23.63 8000 8.50 20848 15.04 46751 20.63 44141 38.61 16718 41.30 32328 27.24 14313 24.73
United States 78429 85.79 82395 83.70 110022 76.37 86088 91.50 117729 84.96 179895 79.37 70173 61.39 23760 58.70 86342 72.76 43560 75.27
Other developed countries 18845 5.52 29128 11.34 19636 5.78 31525 8.77 58366 11.74 46080 5.47 94747 16.68 17598 10.95 63159 29.29 13515 9.98
Australia 8799 46.69 14549 49.95 10492 53.43 26602 84.38 31949 54.74 43439 94.27 18454 19.48 -2981 -16.94 15323 24.26 3987 29.50
Others (Israel, Japan, New Zealand) 10046 53.31 14579 50.05 9144 46.57 4923 15.62 26417 45.26 2641 5.73 76293 80.52 20579 116.94 47836 75.74 9528 70.50
Developing economies 27549 7.45 31060 10.46 39809 10.46 68680 14.86 114922 18.38 144830 14.16 105849 14.98 73975 29.62 96947 28.61 25395 11.33
Africa 1999 7.26 1067 3.44 2718 6.83 14494 21.10 15913 13.85 9891 6.83 8216 7.76 2702 3.65 3184 3.28 3316 13.06
South Africa 1947 97.40 568 53.23 2320 85.36 1604 11.07 10046 63.13 8541 86.35 2817 34.29 1491 55.18 1488 46.73 3316 100.00
Other Africa 52 2.60 499 46.77 398 14.64 12890 88.93 5867 36.87 1350 13.65 5399 65.71 1211 44.82 1696 53.27 0 0.00
Latin America and the Caribbean 11701 42.47 11460 36.90 16487 41.42 10013 14.58 28064 24.42 40195 27.75 2466 2.33 3740 5.06 15710 16.20 5979 23.54
South and Central America 8557 73.13 9294 81.10 11551 70.06 5654 56.47 23622 84.17 30603 76.14 3711 150.49 6539 174.84 15009 95.54 6491 108.56
The Caribbean and other America 3144 26.87 2166 18.90 4936 29.94 4359 43.53 4442 15.83 9592 23.86 -1245 -50.49 -2799 -74.84 701 4.46 -512 -8.56
Asia 13816 50.15 18533 59.67 20598 51.74 44023 64.10 70792 61.60 94469 65.23 94398 89.18 67310 90.99 77962 80.42 16100 63.40
West Asia 3038 21.99 1555 8.39 1280 6.21 19983 45.39 35350 49.94 40103 42.45 22099 23.41 26843 39.88 -15560 -19.96 -2487 -15.45
Turkey 38 1.25 7 0.45 108 8.44 199 1.00 356 1.01 767 1.91 1313 5.94 - - 2 -0.01 538 -21.63
United Arab Emirates 10 0.33 62 3.99 40 3.13 7481 37.44 23117 65.39 15611 38.93 5983 27.07 14831 55.25 -2157 13.86 -1297 52.15
Other West Asia 2990 353.19 1486 95.56 1132 88.44 12303 61.57 11877 33.60 23725 59.16 14803 66.98 12012 44.75 -13403 86.14 -1190 47.85
South, East and South-East Asia 10778 78.01 16978 91.61 19319 93.79 24041 54.61 35441 50.06 54365 57.55 72298 76.59 40467 60.12 93521 119.96 18587 115.45
East Asia 6280 58.27 6730 39.64 5207 26.95 12597 52.40 21163 59.71 -667 -1.23 39888 55.17 35851 88.59 53089 56.77 -7070 -38.04
China 1047 16.67 1647 24.47 1125 21.61 3653 29.00 12090 57.13 -2282 342.13 37941 95.12 21490 59.94 29201 55.00 13476 -190.61
Hong Kong, China 5062 80.61 4168 61.93 2963 56.90 8195 65.06 8003 37.82 -7980 1196.40 -1048 -2.63 7461 20.81 14455 27.23 -1325 18.74
Other East Asia 171 2.72 915 13.60 1119 21.49 749 5.95 1070 5.06 9595 -1438.53 2995 7.51 6900 19.25 9433 17.77 -19221 271.87
74
Value of cross-border M&A by region/economy of purchaser, 2003-May 2011 (Millions of dollars)
Net Purchase
South Asia 336 3.12 1362 8.02 877 4.54 1877 7.81 6745 19.03 29096 53.52 13488 18.66 291 0.72 26434 28.27 -2005 -10.79
India 270 80.36 1362 100.00 863 98.40 1877 100.00 6715 99.56 29083 99.96 13482 99.96 291 100.00 26421 99.95 74 -3.69
Other South Asia 66 19.64 0 0.00 14 1.60 0 0.00 30 0.44 13 0.04 6 0.04 0 0.00 13 0.05 -2079 103.69
South-East Asia 4163 38.62 8886 52.34 13235 68.51 9567 39.79 7533 21.26 25936 47.71 18922 26.17 4325 10.69 13998 14.97 -1167 -6.28
Indonesia 197 4.73 2 0.02 491 3.71 290 3.03 -85 -1.13 826 3.18 913 4.83 -2590 -59.88 893 6.38 74 -6.34
Malaysia 930 22.34 3685 41.47 816 6.17 1946 20.34 2664 35.36 3654 14.09 9751 51.53 3277 75.77 2306 16.47 858 -73.52
Philippines 2 0.05 1 0.01 105 0.79 1829 19.12 190 2.52 -2514 -9.69 -174 -0.92 -7 -0.16 25 0.18 30 -2.57
Singapore 2946 70.77 5018 56.47 11638 87.93 5706 59.64 5566 73.89 23916 92.21 6992 36.95 2762 63.86 7851 56.09 2139 -183.29
Thailand 87 2.09 176 1.98 185 1.40 -203 -2.12 88 1.17 54 0.21 1416 7.48 872 20.16 2864 20.46 1083 -92.80
Other South-East Asia 1 0.02 4 0.05 0 0.00 -1 -0.01 -890 -11.81 0 0.00 24 0.13 11 0.25 59 0.42 -5351 458.53
Oceania 0 0.12 0 0.00 6 0.02 150 0.22 153 0.13 275 0.19 769 0.73 223 0.30 91 0.09 - -
South-East Europe and the CIS 691 0.19 8992 3.03 991 0.26 6188 1.34 2940 0.47 21729 2.12 20167 2.85 7432 2.98 9698 2.86 2352 1.05
South-East Europe 85 12.30 56 0.62 36 3.63 -654 -10.57 -2092 -71.16 1039 4.78 -4 -0.02 -167 -2.25 325 3.35 - -
Commonwealth of Independent States 606
(CIS) 87.70 8936 99.38 954 96.27 6842 110.57 5032 171.16 20691 95.22 20171 100.02 7599 102.25 9373 96.65 2352 100.00
Russian Federation 606 100.00 8763 98.06 949 99.48 6029 88.12 3507 69.69 18598 89.88 16634 82.46 7599 100.00 9082 96.90 2346 99.74
Other CIS 0 0.00 173 1.94 5 0.52 813 11.88 1525 30.31 2093 10.12 3537 17.54 0 0.00 291 3.10 6 0.26
Unspecified - - - - - - 24613 6.02 10134 1.62 11981 1.41 12486 1.77 7528 3.02 16192 4.88 61046 27.23
Source: calculated from UNCTAD cross-border M&A database (www.unctad.org/fdistatistics).
75
Table - 2:3
Number of cross-border M&A by region/economy of seller, 2003-May 2011 (Number of deals)
Net Sales
Region / economy 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (Jan-May)
Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%)
World 4562 100 5113 100 5004 100 5747 100 7018 100 6425 100 4239 100 5405 100 2036 100
Developed economies 3328 72.95 3741 73.17 3805 76.04 4326 75.27 5187 73.91 4603 71.64 2920 68.88 3638 67.31 1420 69.74
Europe 2055 61.75 2211 59.10 2271 59.68 2531 58.51 2955 56.97 2619 56.90 1476 50.55 1944 53.44 804 56.62
European Union 1920 93.43 2055 92.94 2108 92.82 2354 93.01 2717 91.95 2419 92.36 1344 91.06 1780 91.56 718 89.30
Austria 43 2.24 50 2.43 57 2.70 44 1.87 48 1.77 30 1.24 19 1.41 31 1.74 11 1.53
Belgium 74 3.85 66 3.21 64 3.04 87 3.70 81 2.98 86 3.56 50 3.72 77 4.33 22 3.06
France 213 11.09 267 12.99 222 10.53 224 9.52 232 8.54 178 7.36 101 7.51 155 8.71 56 7.80
Germany 296 15.42 360 17.52 374 17.74 426 18.10 434 15.97 337 13.93 169 12.57 185 10.39 108 15.04
Italy 111 5.78 105 5.11 118 5.60 111 4.72 140 5.15 150 6.20 85 6.32 113 6.35 55 7.66
Netherlands 112 5.83 113 5.50 126 5.98 88 3.74 163 6.00 116 4.80 74 5.51 107 6.01 54 7.52
Sweden 83 4.32 118 5.74 115 5.46 144 6.12 148 5.45 164 6.78 73 5.43 117 6.57 42 5.85
United Kingdom 459 23.91 470 22.87 482 22.87 537 22.81 689 25.36 632 26.13 317 23.59 474 26.63 181 25.21
529 Denmark,
27.55 etc506 24.62 550 26.09 693 29.44 782 28.78 726 30.01 456 33.93 521 29.27 189 26.32
Other developed Europe 135 6.57 156 7.06 163 7.18 177 6.99 238 8.05 200 7.64 132 8.94 164 8.44 86 10.70
North America 915 27.49 1129 30.18 1200 31.54 1380 31.90 1717 33.10 1491 32.39 1013 34.69 1228 33.75 487 34.30
Canada 193 21.09 289 25.60 252 21.00 324 23.48 420 24.46 374 25.08 303 29.91 344 28.01 130 26.69
United States 722 78.91 840 74.40 948 79.00 1056 76.52 1297 75.54 1117 74.92 710 70.09 884 71.99 357 73.31
Other developed countries 358 10.76 401 10.72 334 8.78 415 9.59 515 9.93 493 10.71 431 14.76 466 12.81 129 9.08
Australia 193 53.91 207 51.62 180 53.89 229 55.18 252 48.93 306 62.07 283 65.66 305 65.45 87 67.44
Others (Israel, Japan, New Zealand) 165 46.09 194 48.38 154 46.11 186 44.82 263 51.07 187 37.93 148 34.34 161 34.55 42 32.56
Developing economies 1045 22.91 1251 24.47 1062 21.22 1219 21.21 1552 22.11 1501 23.36 975 23.00 1290 23.87 501 24.61
Africa 58 5.55 90 7.19 72 6.78 107 8.78 116 7.47 106 7.06 58 5.95 75 5.81 44 8.78
South Africa 29 50.00 32 35.56 24 33.33 34 31.78 41 35.34 37 34.91 22 37.93 27 36.00 23 52.27
Other Africa 29 50.00 58 64.44 48 66.67 73 68.22 75 64.66 69 65.09 36 62.07 48 64.00 21 47.73
Latin America and the Caribbean 281 26.89 294 23.50 147 13.84 250 20.51 425 27.38 378 25.18 221 22.67 400 31.01 161 32.14
South and Central America 242 86.12 247 84.01 114 77.55 214 85.60 362 85.18 330 87.30 169 76.47 336 84.00 143 88.82
The Caribbean and other America 39 13.88 47 15.99 33 22.45 36 14.40 63 14.82 48 12.70 52 23.53 64 16.00 18 11.18
Asia 699 66.89 859 68.67 832 78.34 854 70.06 999 64.37 1011 67.36 693 71.08 808 62.64 295 58.88
West Asia 31 4.43 40 4.66 57 6.85 86 10.07 116 11.61 138 13.65 77 11.11 101 12.50 37 12.54
Turkey 11 35.48 18 45.00 29 50.88 51 59.30 63 54.31 60 43.48 31 40.26 44 43.56 12 32.43
United Arab Emirates 7 22.58 9 22.50 12 21.05 13 15.12 18 15.52 27 19.57 13 16.88 18 17.82 13 35.14
Other West Asia 13 41.94 13 32.50 16 28.07 22 25.58 35 30.17 51 36.96 33 42.86 39 38.61 12 32.43
South, East and South-East Asia 668 95.57 819 95.34 775 93.15 768 89.93 883 88.39 873 86.35 616 88.89 707 87.50 258 87.46
East Asia 388 58.08 445 54.33 408 52.65 396 51.56 430 48.70 403 46.16 279 45.29 325 45.97 98 37.98
China 214 55.15 217 48.76 217 53.19 224 56.57 232 53.95 236 58.56 142 50.90 146 44.92 52 53.06
Hong Kong, China 108 27.84 143 32.13 138 33.82 119 30.05 144 33.49 93 23.08 67 24.01 105 32.31 22 22.45
76
Number of cross-border M&A by region/economy of seller, 2003-May 2011 (Number of deals)
Net Sales
Other East Asia 66 17.01 85 19.10 53 12.99 53 13.38 54 12.56 74 18.36 70 25.09 74 22.77 24 24.49
South Asia 95 14.22 89 10.87 101 13.03 139 18.10 159 18.01 158 18.10 112 18.18 122 17.26 46 17.83
India 83 87.37 80 89.89 94 93.07 130 93.53 147 92.45 136 86.08 104 92.86 115 94.26 39 84.78
Other South Asia 12 12.63 9 10.11 7 6.93 9 6.47 12 7.55 22 13.92 8 7.14 7 5.74 7 15.22
South-East Asia 185 27.69 285 34.80 266 34.32 233 30.34 294 33.30 312 35.74 225 36.53 260 36.78 114 44.19
Indonesia 38 20.54 45 15.79 30 11.28 24 10.30 40 13.61 54 17.31 35 15.56 60 23.08 29 25.44
Malaysia 34 18.38 57 20.00 92 34.59 67 28.76 91 30.95 80 25.64 75 33.33 59 22.69 19 16.67
Philippines 20 10.81 24 8.42 13 4.89 5 2.15 11 3.74 18 5.77 3 1.33 12 4.62 7 6.14
Singapore 52 28.11 91 31.93 96 36.09 91 39.06 103 35.03 89 28.53 62 27.56 76 29.23 36 31.58
Thailand 29 15.68 54 18.95 29 10.90 36 15.45 31 10.54 41 13.14 12 5.33 18 6.92 7 6.14
Other South-East Asia 12 6.49 14 4.91 6 2.26 10 4.29 18 6.12 30 9.62 38 16.89 35 13.46 16 14.04
Oceania 7 0.67 8 0.64 11 1.04 8 0.66 12 0.77 6 0.40 3 0.31 7 0.54 1 0.20
South-East Europe and the CIS 189 4.14 121 2.37 137 2.74 202 3.51 279 3.98 321 5.00 343 8.09 477 8.83 115 5.65
South-East Europe 80 42.33 42 34.71 30 21.90 39 19.31 73 26.16 46 14.33 17 4.96 18 3.77 10 8.70
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
109 57.67 79 65.29 107 78.10 163 80.69 206 73.84 275 85.67 326 95.04 459 96.23 105 91.30
Russian Federation 48 44.04 42 53.16 66 61.68 101 61.96 118 57.28 181 65.82 185 56.75 343 74.73 73 69.52
Other CIS 61 55.96 37 46.84 41 38.32 62 38.04 88 42.72 94 34.18 141 43.25 116 25.27 32 30.48
Source: UNCTAD cross-border M&A database (www.unctad.org/fdistatistics).
77
Table - 2:4
Number of cross-border M&A by region/economy of purchaser, 2003-May 2011 (Number of deals)
Net Purchase
World 4562 100 5113 100 5004 100 5747 100 7018 100 6425 100 4239 100 5405 100 2036 100
Developed economies 3778 82.81 4255 83.22 3741 74.76 4446 77.36 5443 77.56 4732 73.65 2666 62.89 3644 67.42 1484 72.89
Europe 2050 54.26 2140 50.29 2109 56.38 2519 56.66 3117 57.27 2853 60.29 1522 57.09 1989 54.58 737 49.66
European Union 1866 91.02 1951 91.17 1828 86.68 2216 87.97 2782 89.25 2548 89.31 1328 87.25 1723 86.63 662 89.82
Austria 69 3.70 90 4.61 62 3.39 77 3.47 104 3.74 75 2.94 42 3.16 36 2.09 13 1.96
Belgium 63 3.38 70 3.59 49 2.68 63 2.84 77 2.77 61 2.39 15 1.13 21 1.22 13 1.96
France 200 10.72 220 11.28 253 13.84 265 11.96 404 14.52 381 14.95 191 14.38 219 12.71 87 13.14
Germany 255 13.67 259 13.28 226 12.36 229 10.33 264 9.49 286 11.22 196 14.76 147 8.53 82 12.39
Italy 93 4.98 62 3.18 52 2.84 59 2.66 121 4.35 119 4.67 45 3.39 55 3.19 15 2.27
Netherlands 143 7.66 129 6.61 91 4.98 146 6.59 173 6.22 221 8.67 104 7.83 165 9.58 53 8.01
Sweden 104 5.57 136 6.97 154 8.42 185 8.35 207 7.44 161 6.32 94 7.08 167 9.69 69 10.42
United Kingdom 525 28.14 602 30.86 544 29.76 681 30.73 814 29.26 600 23.55 231 17.39 336 19.50 176 26.59
414 Denmark,
22.19 etc383 19.63 397 21.72 511 23.06 618 22.21 644 25.27 410 30.87 577 33.49 154 23.26
Other developed Europe 184 8.98 189 8.83 281 13.32 303 12.03 335 10.75 305 10.69 194 12.75 266 13.37 75 10.18
North America 1396 36.95 1729 40.63 1234 32.99 1458 32.79 1667 30.63 1436 30.35 888 33.31 1301 35.70 578 38.95
Canada 342 24.50 428 24.75 337 27.31 395 27.09 426 25.55 351 24.44 306 34.46 422 32.44 196 33.91
United States 1054 75.50 1301 75.25 897 72.69 1063 72.91 1241 74.45 1085 75.56 582 65.54 879 67.56 382 66.09
Other developed countries 332 8.79 386 9.07 398 10.64 469 10.55 659 12.11 443 9.36 256 9.60 354 9.71 169 11.39
Australia 167 50.30 198 51.30 209 52.51 246 52.45 363 55.08 153 34.54 58 22.66 107 30.23 52 30.77
Others (Israel, Japan, New Zealand) 165 49.70 188 48.70 189 47.49 223 47.55 296 44.92 290 65.46 198 77.34 247 69.77 117 69.23
Developing economies 710 15.56 817 15.98 765 15.29 839 14.60 1047 14.92 1011 15.74 746 17.60 1061 19.63 360 17.68
Africa 32 4.51 41 5.02 54 7.06 53 6.32 60 5.73 47 4.65 56 7.51 60 5.66 13 3.61
South Africa 22 68.75 25 60.98 26 48.15 22 41.51 38 63.33 22 46.81 29 51.79 33 55.00 7 53.85
Other Africa 10 31.25 16 39.02 28 51.85 31 58.49 22 36.67 25 53.19 27 48.21 27 45.00 6 46.15
Latin America and the Caribbean 138 19.44 145 17.75 80 10.46 132 15.73 174 16.62 146 14.44 116 15.55 192 18.10 68 18.89
South and Central America 88 63.77 94 64.83 51 63.75 81 61.36 105 60.34 82 56.16 71 61.21 129 67.19 57 83.82
The Caribbean and other America 50 36.23 51 35.17 29 36.25 51 38.64 69 39.66 64 43.84 45 38.79 63 32.81 11 16.18
Asia 538 75.77 623 76.25 630 82.35 649 77.35 809 77.27 813 80.42 565 75.74 808 76.15 278 77.22
West Asia 32 5.95 25 4.01 66 10.48 91 14.02 129 15.95 166 20.42 73 12.92 60 7.43 30 10.79
Turkey 3 9.38 4 16.00 7 10.61 4 4.40 12 9.30 5 3.01 4 5.48 3 5.00 5 16.67
United Arab Emirates 8 25.00 9 36.00 22 33.33 42 46.15 56 43.41 68 40.96 36 49.32 15 25.00 11 36.67
Other West Asia 21 65.63 12 48.00 37 56.06 45 49.45 61 47.29 93 56.02 33 45.21 42 70.00 14 46.67
South, East and South-East Asia 506 94.05 598 95.99 564 89.52 558 85.98 680 84.05 647 79.58 492 87.08 748 92.57 248 89.21
East Asia 231 45.65 220 36.79 190 33.69 190 34.05 226 33.24 252 38.95 266 54.07 345 46.12 -49 -19.76
China 73 31.60 59 26.82 45 23.68 38 20.00 61 26.99 69 27.38 97 36.47 148 42.90 47 -95.92
Hong Kong, China 114 49.35 128 58.18 117 61.58 118 62.11 116 51.33 110 43.65 88 33.08 117 33.91 45 -91.84
Other East Asia 44 19.05 33 15.00 28 14.74 34 17.89 49 21.68 73 28.97 81 30.45 80 23.19 -141 287.76
78
Number of cross-border M&A by region/economy of purchaser, 2003-May 2011 (Number of deals)
Net Purchase
South Asia 62 12.25 69 11.54 99 17.55 137 24.55 176 25.88 166 25.66 57 11.59 142 18.98 -15 -6.05
India 57 91.94 64 92.75 98 98.99 134 97.81 175 99.43 163 98.19 56 98.25 139 97.89 44 -293.33
Other South Asia 5 8.06 5 7.25 1 1.01 3 2.19 1 0.57 3 1.81 1 1.75 3 2.11 -59 393.33
South-East Asia 213 42.09 309 51.67 275 48.76 231 41.40 278 40.88 229 35.39 169 34.35 261 34.89 -49 -19.76
Indonesia 6 2.82 14 4.53 5 1.82 1 0.43 5 1.80 11 4.80 9 5.33 13 4.98 7 -14.29
Malaysia 63 29.58 108 34.95 120 43.64 117 50.65 123 44.24 113 49.34 63 37.28 86 32.95 16 -32.65
Philippines 8 3.76 7 2.27 8 2.91 2 0.87 10 3.60 9 3.93 4 2.37 4 1.53 2 -4.08
Singapore 121 56.81 162 52.43 134 48.73 100 43.29 129 46.40 78 34.06 74 43.79 134 51.34 40 -81.63
Thailand 14 6.57 17 5.50 10 3.64 9 3.90 11 3.96 17 7.42 16 9.47 21 8.05 10 -20.41
Other South-East Asia 1 0.47 1 0.32 -2 -0.73 2 0.87 0 0.00 1 0.44 3 1.78 3 1.15 -124 253.06
Oceania 2 0.28 8 0.98 1 0.13 5 0.60 4 0.38 5 0.49 9 1.21 1 0.09 1 0.28
South-East Europe and the CIS 74 1.62 41 0.80 51 1.02 62 1.08 102 1.45 123 1.91 70 1.65 83 1.54 31 1.52
South-East Europe 26 35.14 5 12.20 -9 -17.65 -2 -3.23 9 8.82 4 3.25 - - 3 3.61 - -
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
48 64.86 36 87.80 60 117.65 64 103.23 93 91.18 119 96.75 70 100.00 80 96.39 31 100.00
Russian Federation 40 83.33 28 77.78 45 75.00 54 84.38 70 75.27 108 90.76 65 92.86 75 93.75 27 87.10
Other CIS 8 16.67 8 22.22 15 25.00 10 15.63 23 24.73 11 9.24 5 7.14 5 6.25 4 12.90
Unspecified - - - - 444 8.93 399 6.96 425 6.07 554 8.70 752 17.86 608 11.42 160 7.91
Source: UNCTAD cross-border M&A database (www.unctad.org/fdistatistics).
79
Table: 2:5
Value of Cross-Border M&A, by Sector/Industry of seller, 2003 -May 2011 (Millions of Dollars)
Net Sales
Total 296988 100 296988 100 380598 100 462253 100 625320 100 1022725 100 706543 100 249732 100 338839 100 224163 100
Primary 28324 9.54 28324 9.54 19414 5.10 17145 3.71 43093 6.89 74013 7.24 90201 12.77 48092 19.26 73461 21.68 45096 20.12
Manufacturing 106705 35.93 106705 35.93 120747 31.73 147527 31.91 212998 34.06 336584 32.91 326114 46.16 76080 30.46 129183 38.13 62688 27.97
Services 161959 54.53 161959 54.53 240437 63.17 297581 64.38 369228 59.05 612128 59.85 290228 41.08 125561 50.28 136196 40.19 116379 51.92
Finance 54790 33.83 54790 33.83 81809 34.03 53912 18.12 107951 29.24 249314 40.73 73630 25.37 9535 7.59 31929 23.44 67434 57.94
Business services 23565 14.55 23565 14.55 55261 22.98 84366 28.35 80978 21.93 102231 16.70 100701 34.70 17167 13.67 45634 33.51 15107 12.98
Other services 83604 51.62 83604 51.62 103367 42.99 159303 53.53 180299 48.83 260583 42.57 115897 39.93 98859 78.73 58633 43.05 33838 29.08
Cross-Border M&A, by Sector/Industry, 2000 -May 2011 (Number of deals)
Net Sales
Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%)
Total 4562 100 4562 100 5113 100 5004 100 5747 100 7018 100 6425 100 4239 100 5405 100 2036 100
Primary 343 7.52 343 7.52 366 7.16 265 5.30 413 7.19 485 6.91 486 7.56 433 10.21 600 11.10 264 12.97
Manufacturing 1690 37.05 1690 37.05 1719 33.62 1522 30.42 1688 29.37 1993 28.40 1976 30.75 1153 27.20 1485 27.47 544 26.72
Services 2529 55.44 2529 55.44 3028 59.22 3217 64.29 3646 63.44 4539 64.68 3962 61.67 2653 62.59 3320 61.42 1228 60.31
Finance 510 20.17 510 20.17 584 19.29 484 15.05 531 14.56 712 15.69 563 14.21 458 17.26 557 16.78 187 15.23
Other services 1110 43.89 1110 43.89 1273 42.04 1331 41.37 1464 40.15 1855 40.87 1718 43.36 1086 40.93 1443 43.46 508 41.37
Source: Calculated from UNCTAD, cross-border M&A database (www.unctad.org/fdistatistics).
Note: The data cover the deals involving the acquisition of an equity stake of more than 10%.
80
Table - 2:6
Value of Cross-Border M&A, by Sector/Industry of Purchaser, 2003 -May 2011 (Millions of Dollars)
Net Sales
Total 369789 100 296988 100 380598 100 462253 100 625320 100 1E+06 100 706543 100 249732 100 338839 100 224163 100
Primary 12751 3.45 23573 7.94 17471 4.59 2816 0.61 32650 5.22 95021 9.29 53131 7.52 29097 11.65 52971 15.63 38525 17.19
Manufacturing 137414 37.16 93256 31.40 106795 28.06 118804 25.70 163847 26.20 218661 21.38 244667 34.63 37632 15.07 119862 35.37 79220 35.34
Services 219623 59.39 180159 60.66 256332 67.35 340634 73.69 428822 68.58 709043 69.33 408746 57.85 183003 73.28 166007 48.99 106418 47.47
Finance 41903 19.08 114150 63.36 174096 67.92 224103 65.79 316920 73.90 548901 77.41 311409 76.19 110555 60.41 125669 75.70 65811 61.84
Other services 130472 59.41 56919 31.59 59849 23.35 74044 21.74 64815 15.11 109249 15.41 40249 9.85 54796 29.94 13313 8.02 30557 28.71
Cross-Border M&A, by Sector/Industry, 2000 -May 2011 (Number of deals)
Net Purchases
Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%)
Total 369789 100 4562 100 5113 100 5004 100 5747 100 7018 100 6425 100 4239 100 5405 100 2036 100
Primary 9309 2.52 257 5.63 327 6.40 199 3.98 288 5.01 350 4.99 296 4.61 221 5.21 344 6.36 174 8.55
Manufacturing 115460 31.22 1558 34.15 1599 31.27 1367 27.32 1523 26.50 1872 26.67 1850 28.79 909 21.44 1286 23.79 524 25.74
Services 243772 65.92 2743 60.13 3184 62.27 3438 68.71 3936 68.49 4796 68.34 4279 66.60 3109 73.34 3775 69.84 1338 65.72
Finance 90787 37.24 1117 40.72 1292 40.58 1492 43.40 1661 42.20 2121 44.22 1887 44.10 1728 55.58 1923 50.94 553 41.33
Other services 123180 50.53 855 31.17 950 29.84 758 22.05 944 23.98 1130 23.56 1087 25.40 565 18.17 846 22.41 360 26.91
Unknown* 1248 0.34 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Source: Calculated from UNCTAD, cross-border M&A database (www.unctad.org/fdistatistics).
Note: The data cover the deals involving the acquisition of an equity stake of more than 10%.
* Including non-classified establishments.
81
Table – 2:7
C1: Continent
*Other =Australia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Scotland, Hong Kong, Malaysia
and Thailand
82
Tables – 2:8
Year of Acquisition
Table – 2:9
Number of equity shares: OFFER SIZE
83
Table- 2: 10
Percentage of equity capital: OFFER PERSENTAGE
Table – 2:11
Price of equity shares: OFFER PRICE
Table- 2:12
OBJECTIVE OF THE OFFER
84
Table – 2:13
TARGETED POST OFFER STAKE OF Acquisition

( Total percentage of equity capital)
Table - 2:14
Total Amount in Million
85
Table – 2:15
Industry of Acquirer/ Acquirers
86
References
Agrawal, A. Jaffe, J. and Mandelker, G. (1992), ―The post-merger
performance of acquiring firms‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 47 (4), pp. 1605–
1621.
Al-Sharkas, A. Hassan,K. & Lawrence, S. (2008), ―The Impact of Mergers
and Acquisitions on the Efficiency of the US Banking Industry: Further
Evidence‖, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 35 (1-2),pp.50-
70.
Andrade, G. Stafford, E. (2004),‖Investigating the Economic Role of
Mergers‖, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.10 (1), pp.1-36.
Asquith, P. and Kim, E. (1982), ―The Impact of Merger Bids on the
Participating Firms‘ Security Holders‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 37(5), pp.
1209-1228.
Asquith, P. Bruner, R. and Mullins, D. (1983), ―The gains to bidding firms
from merger‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 11 (1-4), pp. 121–139.
Bagchi, K. (1999), Indian Economic Organizations in a Comparative
Perspective, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Beena,P. (2000), An Analysis of Mergers in the Private Corporate Sector in
India, New Delhi: Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal
Nehru University.
_________ (2004), ―Towards Understanding the Merger-wave in the Indian
Corporate Sector: A Comparative Perspective‖, Working Paper No: 355, CDS,
Thiruvananthapuram, pp.1-44. Download from http://www.cds.edu/ accessed
on 15th May 2011.
87
Beena.S. (2010), ―Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions in India: Extent,
Nature, and Structure‖, Working Paper, Download from http://www.cds.edu/
accessed on 15th May 2011.
Billett, T. and Qian, Y. (2008), ―Are overconfident managers born or made?
Evidence of self-attribution bias from frequent acquirers‖, Management
Science, Vol.54 (6), pp. 1037-1051.
Chang, S. (1998), ―Takeover of Privately Held Targets, Methods of Payment
and Bidder Returns‖, Journal ofFinance, Vol. 53 (2), pp. 773-784.
Dodd, P. andRuback, R. (1977), ―Tender Offers and Stockholder Returns: An
Empirical Analysis‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 5 (3), pp. 351-374.
Dodd, P. (1980), ―Merger proposal, management discretion and stockholder
wealth‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 8 (2), pp. 105–138.
Frank, J. Harris, R. and Titman, S. (1991), ―The Post-merger Share-price
Performance of Acquiring Firms‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 29
(1), pp. 81-96.
Franks, J. and Harris, R. (1989), ―Shareholder wealth effects of corporate
takeovers: the U.K. experience 1955-1985‖, Journal of Financial Economics,
Vol. 23 (2), pp.225-249.
Fuller, K. Netter, J.and Stegemoller, M. (2002), ―What Do Returns to
Acquiring Firms Tell Us? Evidence from Firms That Make Many
Acquisitions‖, Journal of Finance, 57 (4), pp.1763-93.
Ghosh, A. (2001), ―Does Operating Performance Really Improve Following
Corporate Acquisitions?‖, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 7 (2), pp.151-
178.
88
Higham, S. (1934), History of the British Empire. London: Longmans, Green
and Company.
Jensen, M. and Ruback, R. (1983), ―The market for corporate control: The
scientific evidence, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 11 (1-4), pp. 5-50.
Jones, G. (2005), Multinationals and Global Capitalism: From the Nineteenth
Century to the Twenty- First Century, New York: Oxford University Press.
Kale, P. and Harbir, S. (2005), ―Acquisitions and Alliances: Indian Companies
and Value Creation‖, The Tata Management Training Centre Journal of
Management, January: pp.13–18.
Kar, N. (2004), ―Mergers and Acquisitions in India: Background, Implications
and Emerging Issues‖, Chartered Secretary, December, pp.3-15.
Knapp, M. Gart, A. & Chaudhry, M. (2006), ―The impact of mean reversion of
bank profitability on post-merger Performance in the banking industry‖,
Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 30 (12), pp. 3503-3517.
Kothari, L. (1967), ―Industrial Combinations, A Study of Managerial
Integration in Indian Industries‖, Allahabad: Chaitanya Publishing House.
Kummer, D. & Hoffmeister, R. (1978), ―Valuation Consequences of Cash
Tender Offers‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 33 (2), pp. 505-516.
Loderer, C. Martin, K. (1990), ―Corporate Acquisitions By Listed Firms: The
Experience Of A Comprehensive Sample‖, Financial Management, Vol. 19
(4), pp. 17–33.
Malatesta, P. and Thompson, R. (1985), ―Partially Anticipated Events: A
Model of Stock Price Reaction With An Application To Corporate
Acquisitions‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 14 (2), pp.237-250.
89
Marina M, Sjoerd O. and Renneboog L. (2007), ―The long-term operating
performance of European Acquisitions‖, International Mergers and
Acquisitions Activity since 1990: Recent Research and Quantitative Analysis,
Massachusetts: Elsevier.
Mitchell, Mark L. and Harold, M. (1996), ―The Impact of Industry Shocks on
Takeover and Restructuring Activity,‖ Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.
41 (2), pp.193-229
Narulla, R. (2003), ―Globalisation and Technology: Interdependence,
Innovation Systems and industrial Policy‖, New Delhi: Blackwell Publishing
Inc.
RaoMohana, P. (2004), ―Merger and Acquisitions of Companies‖, New Delhi:
Deep & Deep Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Schipper, K. Thompson, R. (1983), ―Evidence on the Capitalized Value of
Merger Activity for Acquiring Firms‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.
11 (1-4), pp. 85-119.
Timothy, A. Hun Y.Kwangwoo, and Kazunori, S. (2003), ―Long-term
Performance following Mergers of Japanese Companies: The Effect of
Diversification and Affiliation‖, American Finance Association, Washington
D.C, pp. 1-40.
Utton, M. (2008), ―International Competition Policy: Maintaining Open
Markets in the Global Economy”, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited.
90
WEBSITE:
2007-12 Volume I. Tenth Five-Year Plan 2007–2012. New Delhi.
http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/welcome.html accessed
on2nd June 2011
Akbulut, E. and Matsusaka, G. (2003), ―Fifty years of diversification
announcements‖, USC Working Paper, Social Science Research Network,
www.ssrn.com accessed on 16th Jan 2010.
Business India, (2005), ―A Landmark Restructuring‖, http://www.adityabirla.
com/media/press_reports/landmark_restructuring.htm accessed on 5th March
2006.
Conn, R. Cosh, A. Guest, M. and Hughes, A. (2004), ―Why Must All Good
Things Come to an End?The Performance of Multiple Acquirers‖, EFMA
Working Paper, Miami University. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=499310 accessed on 15th May 2011.
Daniel Gross, (2009), ―The Recession Is... Over?‖, Newsweek,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/13/the-recession-is-over.
html accessed on 18th September 2010.
DNA (2006), ―INSIGHT: A merger with synergy‖, http://www.dnaindia.com/
money/report_insight-a-merger-with-synergy_1051355 accessed on 8th
February 2010.
East India Company, (1911), Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition,
Volume 8, p.835 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company, dated
26th July 2011.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/573/top-10-ma-deals-in-india-so-far/accessed
on 10th May 2011.
91
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dent_%26_Co, dated 26th July 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India, dated 26th July 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mysore, dated 26th July 2011.
Kamath (2001), pp. 235–237
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh accessed on 17th October, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan , dated 26th July 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasudhaiva_Kutumbakam#cite_ref-0 accessed on
15th September 2010.
http://layman-blog.blogspot.com/2010/05/mergers-and-acquisitionm-of-
domestic.html accessed on 17th October 2011.
http://mergersindiainfo.com/indiascene/indiascene6.htmlaccessed on 10th May
2010
http://trak.in/tags/business/2010/12/24/top-10-ma-mergers-acquistions-
2010/accessed on 17th October 2011
http://www.grammarist.com/usage/amalgam-amalgamation/accessed on 20th
July 2011
http://www.gsk.com/about/history.htm, dated 27th July 2011
http://www.takeovercode.com/committee_reports/pnb_preface.php Accessed
on 25th May 2012
Hul (2008), http://www.hul.co.in/aboutus/ourhistory on 6th June 2011;
Kar, R. and Soni, A. (2008), ―Mergers and Acquisitions in India: A strategic
impact analysis for the corporate enterprises in the post liberalization period‖,
University of Delhi, http://www.igidr.ac.in/money/MERGERS%20AND%20
ACQUISITIONS%20IN%20INDIA.pdf, Accessed on 15th May 2011.
92
Mahesh, T.(2005), ―Impact of Mergers and Amalgamation on the Performance
of Indian Companies‖, http://129.3.20.41/eps/fin/papers/0506/0506007.pdf
accessed on 3 July 2010
Mark Hulbert, (2010), "It's Dippy to Fret About a Double-Dip Recession",
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB5000142405297020398310457536747189
6032724.html accessed on 20th July 2011
Sandeep Dasika, (2011), ―How Mergers And Acquisitions Are Shaping Up
India‖, http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2011/06/mergers-and-acquisitions-are-
shaping-up-india/, Accessed on 10/06/2011
Time of India (2011), ―Court okays Essar Tele's reverse merger with arm‖,
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/20110422/indiabusiness/29462816
_1_vodafone-essar-ruias-india-securities accessed on 10th May 2011
World Investment Report (2008), http://www.unctad-
docs.org/files/UNCTAD-WIR2011-Full-en.pdf accessed on October 15, 2011
World Investment Report (2011), http://www.unctad-docs.org/files/
UNCTAD-WIR2011-Full-en.pdf accessed on October 15, 2011
93
CHAPTER - 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
In India, the issue of corporate Mergers and Acquisitions (M & A) has
attracted attention from academics, government, and capital markets in the
wake of structural adjustments and globalization policy pursued by the
government. This chapter presents, briefly, the review of studies carried out by
different researchers in different settings to understand as to what stimulates
corporate managements to indulge in takeover exercise.
3.1. Introduction:
In the first two months of 2012, M & A transactions amounting to
$16.06 billion have been announced and likely to observe a host of M & A
transactions4. The total value of inbound deals, (wherein foreign companies or
their subsidiaries acquired Indian businesses) in February 2012 was $270
million by way of 9 deals as compared to $7.45 billion in the corresponding
period in February 2011 via 8 transactions. The total value of outbound deals
(Indian companies acquiring companies outside India) in February 2012 was
$441 million (5 deals) as against $206 million (11 deals) in February 2011.
These deals estimated to be of value over $12 billion. According to Dealogic
data5, in 2012 it has taken a longer time to reach the $1 trillion mark as it took
145 days (28th May 2012) to reach the psychological mark, while in 2011 it
reached $1 trillion in just 118 days (28th April 2011).
4
Mostly on account of Vendanta group (Sterlite Industries, Sesa Goa and Vedanta Resources
announced merger of Sesa Goa and Sterlite and the proposed consolidation of group structure). The
latest announcement is that of acquisition by Bain Capital of 30% stake in Genpact for $ 1 billion (ET,
A‘bad August 3rd 2012)
5
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-06-11/news/32156170_1_global-merger-and-acquisition-
value-of-m-a-deals-dealogic accessed on 25th June 2012
94
The cumulative value of M & A transactions globally during the five
months of 2012 stood at $1.07 trillion, down 19 per cent from $1.32 trillion in
the same period in 2011. A sector-wise analysis reported that in 2012, Oil and
Gas was the most targeted sector as it attracted transaction worth of $139.7
billion, followed by Real Estate which cornered $110.2 billion and technology
came in the third place with transactions valued at $98.5 billion. The M & A
are witnessing moderation due to the international economic concerns, mainly
around Europe.
3.2. Analysis of Literature:
Entering into a new market is a convoluted decision which must be
given mission, vision and attention. By and large the objective of establishing
a new business that would be acknowledged and supported by consumers,
more and more business entrepreneurs are trying to enter quickly into the new
market. There are different purposes for market entry. One of the motivational
aspects to enter a worldwide market is the opportunity given by M & A deal to
make the company more competitive. When a company becomes a
multinational company, there is belief that such company has been competent
to establish a competitive position in the open market not only in domestic but
mainly in the worldwide arena. The literature review has been classified into
different themes as objective of acquisition, strategy, market for M & A,
synergy, wealth maximization, and reverse mergers of M & A and the studies
conducted in each of the themes are reviewed and presented by keeping the
objectives of the study in mind.
95
Objective of M & A:
The companies are coming together hoping to gain a greater market
share or achieve greater efficiency. Because of these potential benefits, target
companies will often agree to be purchased when they know they cannot
survive alone. Some popular objectives include synergy, tax considerations,
diversification, management incentives, purchase of assets below their
replacement cost, and breakup value. Separation of ownership and control may
yield specialization advantage through the separation of risk-bearing and
operating functions; it also introduced the possibility of conflicting objectives
on the part of owners and managers (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). Managers
prefer to increase the company‘s size and scope while owners prefer to
optimize their equity value (Marris, 1964). Opportunistic behaviour on the part
of manager was predicted by agency theory, which characterized the firm as a
nexus of contracts between principals and agents. Although unrelated
diversification rapidly increased the size and scope of the acquiring
companies, conglomerate mergers didn‘t usually provide performance benefits
to the acquiring companies.
Randall, Shleifer and Robert (1990) conducted study to find out which
acquisitions are bad investments for bidding shareholders and determine
whether those acquisitions appear to provide private benefits to bidding
managers for a sample of 326 US acquisitions during the period of 1975 to
1987. Acquisition strategies focused on two aspects that can be readily
understood in terms of managerial objectives; buying growth and
diversification. It also looked at the relationship between bidder‘s past
performance and their returns from acquisitions. They concluded that the
96
market penalizes unrelated diversification much more heavily in the 1980‘s
than in the 1970‘s coinciding with the rise of hostile takeovers. The negative
return to acquisitions by poorly performing acquirers was evidenced that bad
acquisitions were a manifestation of agency problems in the company.
Berkovitch and Narayanan (1993) conducted investigation to
distinguish among the three major motives for takeovers; synergy, agency and
hubris. Unlike other researchers, they distinguish among these motives by
using correlation among target, acquirer, and total gains. They showed that
positive correlation indicates the synergy and negative correlation implies
agency being motive while hubris hypothesis results in zero correlation.
Synergy was the reason for the majority of the takeovers; though with
evidence that many takeovers were motivated by agency and hubris. However,
agency, not hubris, seems to be the major reason for the existence of value
reducing acquisitions. In takeovers with negative total gains, the total gains
decreased with competition. This implies that, competition was motivated by
agency rather than by true synergy and that competition will not eliminate
agency problems when they exist but only aggravates them.
Several empirical studies lend support to the importance of synergy as
M & A objective. Bradley, Desai, and Kim (1988) verified that a successful
tender offer increases the combined value of the target and acquiring
companies by an average of 7.4%. Eun, Kolodny, and Scheraga (1996)
verified the synergy hypothesis for cross-border M & A using a sample of
overseas acquisitions of the U.S.A companies during the period 1979-1990.
Their results indicate that cross-border takeovers are normally synergy
creating movements. Maquieira, Meggison, and Nail (1998) studied 260
97
absolute stock-for-stock mergers from 1963 to 1996. They verified substantial
net synergistic profits in non-conglomerate mergers and by and large
insignificant net profits in conglomerate mergers. Mulherin and Boone (2000)
studied the acquisition and divestiture activity of a sample of 1305 companies‘
from 59 industries during the period 1990-1999. The symmetric, encouraging
wealth effects for M & A are consistent with a synergistic description for both
forms of reformation. Seth, Song, and Pettit (2000) concluded that the synergy
hypothesis is the prevalent explanation for their sample of overseas
acquisitions of the U.S.A companies. Grinblatt and Titman (2002) also
analyzed financial and operating synergies as the primary motivation for M &
A during the 1990s.
Kee-Hong, Jun-Koo, And Jin-Mo (2002) conducted study to look at
two competing views about business groups in emerging markets i.e. the
value-added view and the tunneling view. In maximum business group,
ownership was extremely concentrated and controlling shareholders have
power over companies that surpass their cash flow rights. Porta, Lopez-de-
Silanes and Shleifer (1999) concluded that ―the central agency problem in
large corporations around the world is that of restricting expropriation of
minority shareholders by controlling shareholder‖. This issue of organization
between controlling and minority shareholders was very serious when there
were few state sponsored mechanisms to protect minority investors and
control the unrestricted power of large shareholders. Chaebol6 bidders that
showed good past performance prior to merger realize significant negative
announcement returns. Kim and Singal (2000) showed that major capital
controls change in Korea occurred in 1992, when the Korean government
opened the stock market to foreign investment.
6
Korean companies belong to a large business groups known as chaebol
98
The manager‘s objectives were to expand the company‘s size only to
increase the resources under his control (Jensen, 1986), then it would expect a
more negative market reaction to mergers involving larger targets. Horizontal
and vertical mergers showed positive and significant abnormal returns.
Companies that have their stock listed on foreign stock markets made better
investment decisions than companies that are listed only on the KSE. The
results showed that only the coefficient of the interaction variable for the top
30 chaebols were significant but negative at the 5% level. However, the
underlying grounds were differing from one merger or acquisition to another.
Brigham and Ehrhardt (2002, p. 970) stated, ―the primary motivation for most
mergers is to increase the value of the combined enterprise.‖ On the other
hand, practical evidence never reveals whether M & A, on average, create
value. Synergistic conclusions are the result from several sources including
differential efficiency, operating economies, tax effects, financial economies,
and increased market power (Fluck and Lynch, 1999).
Strategy:
The word strategy is derived from the Greek word ―strategtia‖ which
was used first around 400 B.C. This connotes the art and science of directing
military forces to achieve a specified goal. According to Kenneth Andrews
(1971) strategy is ―The pattern of objectives, purpose, goals and the major
policies and plans for achieving these goals stated in such a way so as to
define what business the company is in or is to be and the kind of company it
is or is to be‖ (p.28). In the present day competitive environment, no business
organization can dream of survival without formulating appropriate corporate
strategy. As the environment is continuously changing, the need for corporate

99
strategic framework need no over emphasis. The major components of
corporate strategy are purpose and objectives, competitive advantage, synergy,
personal values, aspirations and social obligations. Basically, strategy is the
managerial response to turbulence.
Joseph (2001) tried to link strategic intent to the implications of
integration that result. The thousands of deals that academics, consultants, and
businessman lump together as M & A actually represent very different
strategic activities. All M & A occur for either to deal with over-capacity
through consolidation in mature industries; to roll-up competitors in
geographically fragmented industries; to extend into new products or markets;
as a substitute for R&D; or to exploit eroding industry boundaries by inventing
an industry.
Hagedoorn and Duysters (2002) examined that companies have used
alternative (quasi) external sources of innovative competencies such as
strategic technology alliances, M & A, or combination of these. These
alternatives are reviewed in the context of distinct industrial, technological,
and international arrangements during the 1990. The history of companies, in
terms of routines with a preference for M & As, strategic technology alliances,
or a mix, determines their current preference for each of these modes or a
combination of them for acquiring innovative capabilities. A group of 135
large US, Canadian and European companies were included in sample.
The finding of the study supported contributions from a variety of
theoretical approaches such as those that combine elements of evolutionary
economic theory with an understanding of the effects of strategic behaviour,
100
theories developed from an organizational learning and technology
perspective, and work done in the context of institutional organization theory
that pays attention to the impact of Industrial conditions on alternative forms
of organization. It also found that these options (strategic technology alliances,
M & A, or combination of these) are influenced by both different Industrial
conditions and company specific circumstances, such as those related to
protecting core business activities.
Mantravadi and Reddy (2007) tried to analysis the impact of different
types of mergers on the operating performance of M & A in India in the post-
economic reforms period of 1991-2003, by analyzing some pre- and post-
merger financial ratios, in a sample of companies involving all mergers by
public limited and registered with respective stock exchange in India. In
specific, the study was aimed to understand which types of mergers have been
more successful in improving the performance of merging companies, among
vertical mergers, horizontal mergers, and conglomerate mergers.
Analysis of pre- and post-merger operating performance ratios for the
entire sample set of mergers showed that there was no change in the average
operating profit margin and gross profit margin ratios, there was significant
decline in the net profit margin, return on net worth and return on capital
employed, in the post-merger period. For mergers between similar group
companies, there was a significant decrease in net profit margin due to likely
increase in interest costs, while other profitability ratios, stayed unchanged.
The significant decrease in profits on net worth and capital employed
suggested that the mergers were not encouraged by efficiency enrichment
likelihoods, but were directed at combining the asset base by merging assets of
101
several group companies to appear larger. Comparison of post- versus pre-
merger operating ratios, for the dissimilar kind of mergers suggested that
horizontal mergers had affected the maximum decline in the operating
performance of the merging firms, followed by conglomerate and vertical
mergers. The decreases were noticeable in terms of returns on net worth and
capital employed, and to a smaller extent on net profit margin, among all kinds
of mergers. The dissimilarities between unlike combinations of mergers yet,
were not statistically significant, leading to the conclusion that merger
outcomes were similar for all merger kinds. Michael (2008) examined role of
strategy in corporate segment in wake of the financial crises of the late 1990s.
The research accepted that worldwide financial establishments and specialists
have to comprehend the need for a strategy to prevent and relieve the
harshness of crises in the corporate world. Yasmeen (2008) also discussed that
M & A strategy is a powerful tool for existence and development of the
corporate world in India. He also discussed several strategies with the help of
case analysis like acquisition of Gillette India Limited by Procter and Gamble
A. Managerial Control
Matsusaka (1993) investigated stock market response to acquisition
announcements during and immediately after the conglomerate merger
wave of the late 1960s. The most important finding of the study was that
acquirer shareholder benefited from diversification acquisitions, which
implies that diversification was not driven by managerial objectives. It was
also found that buyers earned significantly positive announcement period
returns during the conglomerate merger wave when they made
diversifying acquisitions. The hypothesis that conglomerates wave driven
102
by empire building or some other managerial objective can be rejected
because such explanations imply value decreases to unrelated acquisitions.
It concluded that market responded positively to bidders who retained the
management of target companies and negatively to bidders who replaced
target management (Bradley, Desai, and Kim, 1988). Researcher made
three contributions to the study of diversification: It directly tested and
refuted one popular explanation for the conglomerate merger wave, it
provided some indirect evidence on three other explanations7, and it was
presented as an empirical puzzle concerning the market‘s changing
sentiments over time.
Kavin (1999) studied the relationship between bank ownership
concentration and corporate strategy. The research aimed at testing two
hypotheses i.e. banking corporations that are controlled by their managers
will be more active acquirers of other banks, and banking corporations that
are effectively controlled by their managers will be more likely to engage
in out-of-market bank acquisitions. The out of market bank acquisitions
could be motivated by managerial opportunism, and lacking any cost
advantages, these acquisitions may detract from the company value. The
second hypothesis was amenable to testing with an ordinary least squares
regression. The 156 sample banking firms, larger banks appear to be more
active acquirers of other banks, irrespective of their previous profitability
or their ownership concentration.

7
First, it may be that something in the world changed between the 1960s and the 1980s. Some have
pointed to antitrust regimes- there was tight enforcement in the 1960s and tax enforcement in the 1980s
under the Reagan administration. A second explanation for the change in market sentiment had to do
with first mover advantages and learning. Early conglomerates earned significantly positive returns
simply because they were first; they may have captured some rents to organizational innovation that
were subsequently driven to zero. A third explanation was that the market simply made a mistake about
diversification (Matsusaka, 1993)
103
The corporate strategies of banks differ based on the presence or
absence of an outside owner with a substantial equity stake. The empirical
association of out-of-market acquisitions with manager-controlled bank
was consistent with the agency-theoretic and managerial-capitalism
context of research. The out of market acquisitions may not yield cost
reductions because they lack the overlapping operations associated with M
& A when both acquirer and target have a presence in the market. The
evidence also suggested that out of market acquisitions increased bank size
but did not improve acquiring bank performance. Although manager
controlled banks were not be able to make a larger number of acquisitions
than their owner controlled counterparts, they may be willing to undertake
less efficient acquisitions in order to grow while maintaining the stability
of their employment.
Vedpuriswar (2003) investigated risk in M & A. An unbiased analysis
of the possible benefits and drawbacks involved is imperative before going
ahead with M & A. Board directors have a key role to play here,
particularly the external directors. CEOs must be meticulously examined
and requested to explain the benefits of M & A. Once the decision to go
ahead with the merger is announced, the focus shifts to incorporation of
new company. This was a job which is underrated by most companies. It is
concluded that the efficiency of management of the combination process
determine whether the projected synergies materialize. The complexities in
planning and executing M & A make them very risky and CEOs in rush to
complete M & A deals should never undervalue the risks of M & A.
104
Nandita (2004) conducted a study to explore the evolution of
Corporate Governance policies pursued in India for the private corporate
sector in relation to the market for corporate control with a view to identify
the changing trend in such policies in the post-liberalization regime.
Matthew and David (2008) also studied the property rights theory of the
company to empirical regularities in the market for M & A and illustrated
concept of who buys whom.
B. Cross-border M & A
Jun-Koo (1993) presented evidence that Japanese M & A in the U.S.
generated statistically significant wealth gain for both Japanese bidders
and U.S. targets. Consistent with the opinions advanced by Jensen (1986),
Fama (1990), and Froot and Stein (1991) and with other literature on FDI
and the market for corporate control, he also found that bidder-specific
qualities and dollar-yen exchange-rate movements were beneficial in the
cross-sectional variation in bidder returns; returns to Japanese bidders and
to the portfolio of Japanese bidders and U.S. targets increased with the
bidder‘s leverage, the bidder‘s ties to financial institutions through
borrowings, and the depreciation of the dollar in relation to the Japanese
yen. Sub-period results showed that the key findings for the overall sample
period are determined by the last three years of deals i.e. 1986-88.
Rotting (2007) addressed normal hitches in international M & A, and
has produced a typology of strategies that may restrict these hitches. They
concluded ―that despite the extensive body of research on M & A that has
accumulated over the last thirty years, the key factors for M & A success
105
and the reasons why so many M & A fail remain poorly understood‖
(Stahl and Mendenhall, 2005: xiii). Even though a substantial body of
research has expounded bearing in mind cultural distance as the key reason
for the collapse of international M & A, practical conclusions are mixed
and inconclusive. The key hypothesis made was that cultural distinctions
may not necessarily act for an unfavorable force influencing international
M & A. As an alternative, incompetent management of the cultural
amalgamation process in the post-acquisition phase may be accountable
for the large number of poorly performing cross-border M & A. The
framework developed by researcher recommended that victorious cultural
combination is influenced by cultural due diligence, cross-cultural
communication, control, and connection which was referred as the ―Five
C‘s Framework‖ of rewarding international M & A management.
Jing (2012) presented the strategic trends in recent years for M & A of
transnational corporations in China. M & A strategy of MNCs in China
successfully executed, not only objective requirement of political reform
and economic growth in China, there are also unintentional by Chinese
business men and government of the subjective mistakes caused. It
concluded that to prevent risk of multinational M & A in China, Chinese
companies need to increase awareness of multinational M & A, cautiously
select joint venture partners, and develop comprehensive learning system
in joint venture or cooperative, improved studying competencies, and
enriched management of M & A strategies.
106
C. Strategy process of M & A: case study of Novartis
Schmidt and Rühli (2002) carried out case study of the Novartis,
world‘s largest merger between Ciba and Sandoz in Switzerland, market
valued of $80 billion. The case study explained that the mega merger
initiated not a fundamentally new or innovative strategy processes. It is not
possible for a merged entity to achieve a complete change in strategic
orientation while continuing its operational business. The case study also
showed that the merger theory is very much aligned to prior strategy
processes of the merging companies. It is essential for the management of
companies intending a merge to comprehend challenges between their own
and their merger partners‘ strategy processes developed earlier to the
merger. The selected strategy of a merged corporation is by and large the
consequence of a not immediately transparent process of negotiation and
communication between the management bodies of the merging
companies.
Market for Corporate Control:
M & A are big part of the corporate finance; corporate assets would be
channeled towards their best possible use. M & A transactions that bring
together separate companies to make larger ones. When they are not creating
big companies from smaller ones, corporate finance compulsions do the
reverse and break-up companies through spin-offs, or tracking stocks. Strong
companies act to buy other companies to create a more competitive and cost-
efficient company.
107
The literature on foreign direct investment (FDI) and the market for
corporate control recommended that overseas M & A are inspired by
numerous factors, such as limitations in product and factor markets
(Hymer,1976, Caves 1971, and Kindleberger,1969), drawbacks and
irregularities in capital markets (Froot and Stein,199l), dissimilarities in tax
rules and regulations (Scholes and Wolfson,1989), and executive management
that take action in its individual interest to the impairment of shareholders
wealth (Jensen,1986).
Modifications in U.S. tax laws in the 1980s influenced Japanese M &
A movement in the United State of America (USA). Scholes and Wolfson
(1989) opined that the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981
dissuaded M & A deals between the U.S.A sellers and overseas buyers; it
raised the demand for deals among the U.S.A companies. It accelerated
devaluation programmes and more substantial investment tax credits presented
in the ERTA of 1981raised tax motivations for the U.S.A buyers, but put
overseas buyers at a shortcoming. Sholes and Wolfson (1989) also opined that
this drawback was removed by the Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986, which
decreased the marginal corporate tax rate in the U.S.A, making the U.S.A a tax
haven for several Japanese and European companies that encounter higher
corporate tax rates in their domestic countries. However, the experiential effort
on the market for corporate control showed that target companies achieved
substantial gains from local acquisitions (Jensen and Ruback, 1983; and
Jarrell, Brickley, and Netter, 1988). It is not recognized whether the wealth
gains fluctuate for target companies of Japanese and the U.S.A companies.
Since the concept of FDI assumed that limitations in product markets, capital
108
markets and factor markets provide MNC companies a competitive benefit
above local companies in the domestic county (Kindlebergei, 1969; Caves,
1971; Hymer, 1976; and Froot and Stein, 1991), cross-border M & A are
expected to generate more wealth than local M & A. Since target companies
are likely to gain maximum benefits of M & A, the FDI concept suggested that
wealth gains to targets of Japanese companies are superior than those to
targets of the U.S.A companies. Harris and Ravenscraft (1991) also concluded
that the U.S.A targets of overseas buyers have substantially greater wealth
gains than do those of the U.S.A companies.
Steven and Michael (1992) used market model parameters to
determine the market reaction for acquirers and targets to the acquisition
announcements, over the period from 300 to 61 trading days before the first
announcement in the Wall Street Journal that a company was seeking control
of the target. Abnormal returns, calculated for the period beginning five
trading days before the acquirer‘s first announcement for acquirers. It was
seeking control of the target and ending five trading days after the
announcement of the ultimately successful bid or outcome. Researchers
conducted a significance tests using standard errors and cross-sectional
announcement period returns. These standard errors tend to be large then those
calculated using returns from the market model for estimation period (As
proposed by Patell, 1976). Acquirer returns and total (acquirer and target)
returns at the acquisition announcement were significantly lower for
unsuccessful divestitures than for successful divestitures and acquisitions not
divested. Although diversifying acquisitions were almost four times more
likely to be divested than related acquisitions. There was no strong evidence
found that diversifying acquisitions were less successful than related ones.
109
Ronald and Hemmo (2001) opined that benefits of M & A were
questioned in several reports that examine the price reaction of the stocks
involved. In long run it was reported an under performance in the year after
the merger or acquisition. In short run, the results were mixed. It was focused
on the short-run stock price performance of firms involved in a merger or
acquisition. It also looked at the reaction of equity analysts by examining the
changes in consensus earnings estimates for the post-announcement years. It
has used a global sample for the relatively short time period of one year. The
ongoing downward earning revisions by analysts suggested a lack of synergies
and thereby indicated that the out performance was unjustified. These findings
were in conflict with the efficient markets hypothesis. In the case of analyst‘s
earnings revisions, acquirers appear to reap the fruits of their takeover after
two years at the earliest. There was a lack of upward revisions, but relative to
the market earnings estimates noticed better performance. The study also
highlighted those investors who want to play M & A game is focused on
potential targets, because they show attractive out performance on an
announcement. Finally, it was concluded that M & A be worth of critical
assessment.
Vojislav and Phillips (2001) carried out a study to analyse the market
for corporate assets in manufacturing industries. In the USA each year during
the period1974 to 1992, an average 3.89% of the large manufacturing plants in
the country changed ownership. The main three results on the probability
assets sold were as follow: For multiple – division companies, the probability
of a company selling assets decreases with both the asset‘s and the segment‘s
productivity. The probability of mergers and company sell-offs was higher
110
when selling company was less productive and the industry experiences a
positive demand shock; the selling company‘s productivity in other divisions
impacts the probability of a sale. A division was more likely to be sold the
better the prospects of the other divisions and it was found that the probability
that company was a buyer of additional assets increases with efficiency and
size.
The results were consistent with more skilled buying companies being
able to transfer skill and improve the assets purchase. There was no evidence
that manager of conglomerate companies were less enthusiastic to sell assets
than manager of single segment companies. The results indicated that efficient
companies refocusing in booms might produce the highest profits to
transaction. It concluded that the market for corporate assets facilitates the
redeployment of assets from firms with a lower ability to exploit them with
higher ability.
Mihkel. M. Tombak (2002) carried out a study to examine the
horizontal merges between companies that have different cost. The Horizontal
mergers between asymmetric companies have been concluded as a three-stage
game8. There were two reasons for buying the most efficient rival companies;
first, it reduces the profits of the acquiring company and second, it reduces the
subsequent purchase prices by reducing the reservation values of future targets
to those of their present profits. It used game-theoretic model to examine the
incentive to merge companies engaged in either Cournot or Bertrand

8
In the first stage owners decide on which company to acquire or sell. The purchase price was
determined between pair of possible buyers and sellers after bargaining game. The owner of several
companies then decides on whether to consolidate company in second stage. In the final stage, with
efficiencies and market structure determined in the first two stages, companies competed in an
asymmetric Cournot game. These three stages were repeated until no further gains to acquisitions can
be made.
111
competition in various types of product markets with diverse production
technologies. It was found that, given a choice, acquiring companies were
more likely to attempt to purchase their most efficient and largest rivals first
and that this may lead to monopolization.
Shareholders of target companies customarily obtain large premiums
(on an average 10% to 30%) relative to the pre-announcement share price.
Jarrell and Poulsen (1989), Servaes (1991), Kaplan and Weisbach (1992) and
Mulherin and Boone (2000) for example, reported for average abnormal
returns of 21% the U.S.A. target companies (for year 1990-99), 27% (year
1971–82), 24% (year 1972–87) and 29% (year 1963– 86), respectively.
Likewise to their U.S. counterparts, the UK and Continental European target
companies gained average returns of 24% during the period 1955-85 (Franks
and Harris 1989), 19% in 1966-91 (Danbolt 2004), and 13% in 1990-2001
(Goergen and Renneboog, 2004).
Synergy:
The synergy gain denotes the increases in value (i.e.
) of the combined entity than the stand alone values of acquiring
company as well as the target company. Sirower (1997) defined ―synergy as
increases in competitiveness and resulting cash flows beyond what the two
companies are expected to accomplish independently‖ (p.6). Synergy gains
can occur from several sources, like functional synergies are created from
economies of scale, from increased market power, from a more competent
deployment of available resources and from decreased agency costs. One more
important source of synergy may be from the potential to transfer valuable
112
intangible assets, such as know –how, between the combining companies in
the presence of transaction costs that lead to failure of factor markets (Caves,
1982). The potential for acquires to realize gains from taking over companies
with high levels of agency problems and taking action to resolve these
problems was a motive for acquisitions in general.
Sirower (1997) conducted study to examine whether M & A is good
for shareholders or presumably for the economy. The acquisition premium
represents the hope of synergy in a corporate combination. Where high
premiums were paid, the values of synergies often have to be substantial to
reach a break-even point and this was what Sirower described as the ‗synergy
trap‘.
The valuation of uncertain future benefits such as synergies is difficult
and this part of the overall valuation is therefore, often not performed at all, or
inadequately addressed. It assessed the significance of synergy identification
and evaluation in the pre-deal stage of M & A. Synergies is only realized
through post-merger integration of both processes and people, where a
premium has been paid for the acquisition. The slower the integration the
slower the recognition of synergies and was more expensive. Adding synergy
means creating value that not only didn‘t yet exist but was not yet expected.
Kode, Ford, and Sutherland (2003), provided a conceptual model for
evaluation of synergies in M & A. The majority of M & A rely on synergies in
the value creation process. Just small proportions of M & A were undertaken
for non-synergistic reasons. Synergies were used to give explanation for the
payment of premiums, executive management need to fully understand how to
113
evaluate synergies. The analysis was in the form of a documentary review via
content analysis (Babbie, 1998). It consisted of a detailed scanning of the
literature on the subject to identify common threads and to crystallize the
thinking around it. As per literature the payment of too high an acquisition
price and the lack of planning to integrate the organizations are the leading
causes of failure. Three additional issues were identified for the generations of
productive synergies: 1) Aulinger and Copeland (1996) identified that the
existence of modern operating strategies in M & A was the single largest
source of value creation in successful acquisitions, whereas most author
focused on the usual drivers of synergistic gains i.e. financial research has
shown that many combinations fail because of failure to evaluate synergies
adequately or at all. 2) Haspeslangh and Jemison (1991) recognized the key
difference between success and failure in M & A as being the survival of a
superior understanding of the decision-making process. 3) Marks and Mirvis
(1997) have separated an unhealthy focus by decision-making on the financial
implications of M & A.
A. Managerial Control
The hubris hypothesis (Roll, 1986) suggested that acquisitions occur
because managers make mistake in evaluating target companies and the
takeover premium merely reflects a random error. As Roll (1986; p.200)
described as, ―Financial markets are assumed to be efficient in the asset
prices reflect all information about individual firms. Product and labor
markets are assumed efficient in the sense that (a) no industrial
reorganization can bring gains in an aggregate output at the same cost or
114
reductions in aggregate costs with the same output and (b) management
talent is employed in its best alternative use‖. The strong form market
efficiency assumption of the hubris hypothesis contrasts with the
assumption underlying the synergy hypothesis that these exist frictions in
product or factor markets. In addition, whereas the synergy hypothesis
assumes rational profit maximizing behavior on the part of individual
managers, the hubris hypothesis in its extreme form assumes irrational
individual behaviour, since rational manager would realize that any bid
above the market price is an error and desists from market such as bid.
Seth, Song and Pettit (2000) conducted study to examine the motive
underlying foreign acquisitions of the USA companies, estimated the
extent of value creation associated with such M & A and examined how
total profits were shared between acquiring and targets companies. Event
study methodology was applied to estimate abnormal returns of acquirer
and target companies. The managerialism hypothesis suggested that
managers embark on acquisitions to maximize their own utility at the
expense of the shareholders of the company. Since managerial
compensation frequently was tied to the amount of assets under their
control, managers were more likely to seek higher rate of growth in assets
than profits (Marris, 1964). The hubris hypothesis suggested that bidding
firm managers make mistakes in evaluating targets companies but
undertake acquisitions presuming that their valuations were correct.
Multiple empirical approaches were used to test the synergy,
managerialism, and hubris hypotheses in the cross-border acquisitions.
115
Mitchell and Lehn (1990) showed that bidders in ―bad‖ acquisitions
are more likely to be taken over themselves. It was examined the mean
level of the gains to acquirers and targets and the total gains to the pair of
combining companies, and also the proportion of acquisitions in our
sample with positive total gains. It was also examined the correlation
between the gains to the target and total gains to the combined firm and
gains to the acquirer and the target, similar to the approach of Berkovitch
and Narayanan, 1993. Empirical tests indicated that the synergy hypothesis
explained gains in the majority of cross-border acquisitions. At the same
time, the hubris hypothesis appeared to play a role in value creating
transactions. Cross-border acquisitions characterized by value destruction
appear to be driven by managerialism rather than by hubris.
B. Shareholder Protection :
Rossi and Volpin (2004) studied the volume of M & A activity and it‘s
linked to both the level of shareholder safety and the characteristics of
accounting standards. They found that merger premium was related to the
level of shareholder fortification. However, their outcomes emerged to be
driven by the U.S.A and the U.K market interpretations. Starks and Wei
(2004) also concluded that for stock acquisitions, the market response for
the target company is lower when the acquirer is domiciled in a country
with powerful marginal shareholder fortification, but that the market
response for the acquiring company in these acquisitions is higher. They
explained their conclusions as evidence that dissimilarities in the level of
marginal shareholder fortification between targets and acquirers
companies influenced the sharing of synergy gains.
116
However, the conclusions of Bris and Cabolis (2008) are also for the
most part consistent with Starks and Wei (2004). Bris and Cabolis (2008)
found that the stock market response to the merger announcement for
target companies is higher when the acquirer is from a country with
powerful fortification of marginal shareholder benefits or when the
accounting standards in the country are more crystal clear and that the
response is not symmetric across acquiring and target companies. Thus,
whereas earlier research has shown that cross-country dissimilarities in
marginal shareholder fortifications and accounting standards influence
merger premium, prior research has not discovered reliable conclusions
concerning whether the total synergy gains or the sharing of synergy gains
is pretentious by these qualities.
Wealth Maximizations:
A number of studies were completed in developed capital markets, like
Europe, Australia, Japan, and the USA, on evaluation of corporate financial
wealth maximization following M & A. Weston and Mansingka (1971)
studied the pre and post-merger stock price performance of conglomerate
companies, and concluded that their earnings rates significantly
underperformed those in the control sample group, but after 10 years, there
were no significant dissimilarities noticed in functioning among the two
groups. The correction in earnings performance of the conglomerate
companies was illuminated as evidence for successful accomplishment of
suspicious reformation.
117
Jensen and Ruback (1983) reviewed the scientific literature on the
market for corporate control. The evidence indicated that corporate takeovers
generate positive gains that target company shareholders gain and acquiring
company‘s shareholder do not lose. Lubatkin (1983) reviewed the conclusions
of studies that have examined either directly or indirectly the question, ―Do
mergers provide real benefits to the acquiring firm?‖ The review
recommended that acquiring company might gain from M & A because of
technical, financial and diversification synergies. Katsuhiko and Noriyuki
(1983) also examined the financial performances of 43 merging companies in
Japanese manufacturing industry and concluded that the rate of return on
equity share increased in more than half the situations, but rate of return on
total assets was enhanced in about half the circumstances. However, both
profit percentage rates showed enhancement in more than half the transactions
in the five-year test, recommended that company performances after mergers
started to be enhanced along with the internal adjustment of the merging
companies: there was a necessary gestation period during which merging
companies educated how to manage their new restructured organizations.
Healy, Palepu, and Ruback (1992) studied post-acquisition functioning
for 50 largest the U.S.A mergers between 1979 -1984 by calculating cash flow
performance, and concluded that operating performance of merging company
enhanced considerably subsequent to M & A, when compared to their
particular industrial segment. Ghosh (2001) also studied the same question
that whether operating cash flow performance enhanced subsequent to
corporate M & A, utilizing a model that accounted for excellent pre-
acquisition performance, and found that merging company did not show
supporting data of enhancements in the operating performance subsequent to
M & A.
118
Loughran, and Vijh (1997) carried out study to examine the
relationship between the post-acquisition income and the mode of acquisition
and form of payment. This research was different in two respects, i.e. the
previous review recognized that post acquisition abnormal returns were
inconsistent with market efficiency and the computation of excess returns. The
sample was classified based on the mode of acquisition i.e. merger or tender
offer and the form of payment i.e. stock or cash. Both variables have been
examined in the context of wealth gains from acquisitions. It was observed
that tests of long-term returns were joint tests of market efficiency and wealth
gains from mergers and tender offers. It was found that our results on stock
acquisitions were different from stock issues. It was also examined that the
cumulative abnormal returns from holding the target stock from two days
before the first announcement date to effective date and then rolling over the
proceeds for another five years by investing in the acquirer stock. It was
possible that some of the excess returns earned by cash tender offers may be
the result of investors under estimating the possible gains from disciplinary
actions associated with tender offers, such as the appointment of new
managers. The results suggested that in the case of stock merger, the gain tend
to dissipate within five years even if the acquisition succeeds. The overall
wealth gains of target shareholder from stock mergers by combining the pre-
acquisition returns and post-acquisition returns. Target shareholders gained
from all types of acquisitions seems to be a generally accepted result in the
finance literature.
Kruse, Park and Suzuki (2003) examined the long-term operating
performance of Japanese companies using a sample of 56 mergers of
manufacturing firms in the period 1969 to 1997. By examining the cash-flow
119
performance in the five-year period following mergers, the study found
evidence of improvements in operating performance, and also that the pre- and
post-merger performance was highly correlated. The study concluded that
control firm adjusted long-term operating performance following mergers in
case of Japanese firms was positive but insignificant and there was a high
correlation between pre- and post-merger performance. Marina, Martynova,
Sjoerd and Renneboog (2007) investigated the long-term profitability of
corporate takeovers in Europe, and found that both acquiring and target
companies significantly outperformed the median peers in their industry prior
to the takeovers, but the profitability of the combined firm decreased
significantly following the takeover. However, the decrease became
insignificant after controlling for the performance of the control sample of
peer companies.
A. Short-run event studies
The short-run event study is summarized in Table – 3:1. Only the
earlier studies in the US by Asquith et al. (1983) and in the UK by Franks
and Harris (1989) found significant positive returns to acquirers. It also
showed that both of these studies included takeovers in the 1950s (Franks
and Harris, (1989)) and the 1960s (Asquith et al, 1983) when takeovers
emerge to have been more favorable to acquiring companies shareholders.
The remaining studies from both the UK and the US concluded either no
significant variance in the returns of acquirers or found significantly
negative returns around the offer announcement. Additionally, after 1980
research noticed increasingly negative performance of acquirers, a finding
consistent with evidence explained by Andrade et al. (2001). It is also
120
worth noting that evidence from other countries tends to be more positive
than conclusion documented for the UK and the US. For example, Campa
and Hernando (2004) described insignificant gains from a sample of
Continental European takeovers, while Ben-Amar and Andre (2006)
highlighted positive announcement returns from a sample of listed
Canadian acquirers. Sudarsanam and Mahate‘s (2003) carried out study of
the short-run performance of a sample of 519 UK acquirers between 1983
and 1995. The researcher showed significantly negative abnormal returns
of 1.4% (over the -1 to +1 day window) with only 3rdof acquirers come
across wealth gains. For the extended post announcement period (-2 to +40
days), Sudarsanam and Mahate (2003) also explained generally negative
abnormal returns but didn‘t found the differences to be statistically
significant and findings are broadly similar to Limmack (1991) and
Gregory (1997). However, almost 70% of acquirers revealed wealth losses
over the extended event window.
B. Long-run event studies:
A great deal of research studies conducted to evaluate the long-run
post-acquisition performance of acquirers. Much of this has been
motivated between 1960-1980, studies recommended that takeovers may
have a negative return on the long-run wealth of shareholders (Asquith
1983; Malatesta 1983). However, many of the studies (i.e. in the 1970s and
1980s) examined the post-acquisition performance of acquirers as part of a
more widespread analysis of takeovers; while the past period has seen
more studies concentrating completely on acquirer performance.
121
The long team event studies are highlighted in Table - 3:2, Long team
studies recommended that takeovers produce either insignificant or
negative abnormal returns in the long run. In the UK, for example,
Limmack (1991) noticed significantly negative returns for a sample of 448
takeovers between 1977 and 1986. Kennedy and Limmack (1996) found
significantly negative returns to bidders involved in takeovers during the
1980s. Gregory (1997), in a research of takeovers between 1984 and 1992,
concluded significant negative post-takeover returns. Eventually,
Sudarsanam and Mahate (2003, 2006) also found significant negative
returns in the post-offer period. A study by Alexandridiset al., (2006) used
the three-factor model devised by Fama and French (1993) and the
customary Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) method. Both models
provided a negative abnormal return of around 1%, which is robust when
returns are calculated from equally-weighted and from value weighted
portfolios. Gregory and McCorriston (2005) found that acquirers lose
9.36% and 27% following from the date of announcement after 3 and 5
years respectively whereas there were no significant returns for 0 to -2
years. Conn et al., (2005) computed abnormal returns for a sample of the
UK companies and concluded that acquirers lost around 20% over three
years. Thus, the overwhelming concurrence is that shareholders in
acquiring companies experience significant wealth losses when long-run
returns are taken into account.
However, discussing conclusions of event-studies, it highlighted that
this particular research method is associated with a number of
methodological problems. Despite the fact that short-run studies are
122
somewhat straightforward and trouble free (Kothari and Warner 2004), it
should be cherished that they are at risk from preconceived notion, since
announcement returns tend to reveal the expectations of shareholders.
Long-run event studies are connected with more significant difficulties.
First, the elucidation of research findings is not so straightforward, as all
tests are basically joint tests of whether abnormal returns are zero and
whether the assumed model of expected returns (i.e. CAPM, market
model, etc.) is acceptable. Secondly, ordinary t-tests necessitate data that
are normally distributed. Since long-run share price returns be inclined to
be skewed, substitute tests have been formed in an endeavor to take this
skewness into account. Thirdly, the dependability of long-run event studies
may also be destabilized by thin trading9 and the overlapping of event
periods. Overlapping events cause predominantly acute difficulty in
evaluating the long-run performance of acquiring companies as, over a
period of years, a range of company-specific events (counting subsequent
acquisitions) may persuade the share price returns. One way of dealing
with these difficulties is to run the analysis without companies
experiencing thin trading and by not including bidders other offers within
a certain period of the event under examination (Gao and Sudarsanam,
2004). Fourthly, much of this study uses the CAPM as a yardstick measure
for abnormal returns. There is substantial evidence that the time series
properties enhance when a longer period is used (5 years data is the rule of
thumb (Groenewold and Fraser, 2000)).
9
Thin trading refers to extended periods where a particular stock is not traded.
123
De-merger:
As opposed to M & A, the strategy of demerger was a theme that has
been equally dominant among corporates. Leading corporate groups have
opted for demergers to attract attention and create greater shareholder wealth.
Indian companies like, Godrej Soaps, Dabur India, and Indian Rayon have
used demerger as a tool to maximize focus and shareholder wealth.
As long as there was a sharing of common interest between different
businesses of group, diversification emerged as a better strategy for growth.
However, with the difference between various businesses now standing out
more clearly than ever before, demerger has evolved as a better strategic tool
in the corporate survival game. It was believed that in today‘s fiercely
competitive global market landscape where factors like, business cycles,
economics and investment requirements determine the fate of a business
entity, demerger makes sense.
Demergers, however, have their own pros and cons. Concerns related
to issues such as operational costs, distribution of financial assets, transfer of
debt obligations and loss of identity weigh equally in demerger cases. Hence
challenge lies in managing the transition i.e., in managing the change from
being a part of a conglomerate to focused entity, managing internal and
external challenges, linking functional excellence to business results, changing
the mindset, and establishing systems and structures to help realize what is
enshrined in corporate vision and mission statement.
Singh and Goodrich (2006) examined the split that followed the failed
succession plan for Reliance Industries Limited is one of the most significant
and exposed story in Indian business segment. In the absence of a concrete
124
succession strategy in the case of Reliance Industries after the death of D. H.
Ambani, given the fact that it was one of the biggest private sector company
and most successful exchange swapped conglomerates, the economic effects
in terms of corporate value erosion and shareholder wealth destruction were
massive. The ambiguous environment after the demise of Dhirubhai in 2002
has had negative effect on company‘s equity stock performance. In addition,
unveiled proposal of de-merger and splitting of RIL kingdom between the two
brothers. There was value destruction due to lost diversification benefits,
synergies, economies of scale and scope, and complementarities. This case
study explained the effects of the dispute of two brothers on corporate value
and continuation of well-organized business practices.
A. Case Studies
Demerger of Reliance has led to an effective delisting of a significant
part of the company. On January 18, 2005 a special trading session was
held to determine the price of the demerged Reliance Industries. It was
established that the demerged company was worth a little over three
quarters of the undivided company. By implication, the four companies
that were demerged out of Reliance Industries collectively accounted for
about a quarter of the value of the undivided company. Reliance Industries
(or rather the three quarters that continue under that corporate umbrella)
continues to be a listed company, but the four companies that were
demerged out of it are also listed companies. On January 18, 2005
therefore, about a quarter RIL was effectively de-listed10 from respective
stock exchange of India.
10
It means, millions of shareholders in these companies cannot trade these shares, the corporate
governance provisions of Clause 49 on independent directors and investor protection do not apply to
125
Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), on August 5, 2005, announced its plans
of de-merging the telecommunications, coal based energy, financial
services and gas based businesses into four different companies, viz
Reliance Communications Ventures Ltd (RCVL), Reliance Energy
Ventures Ltd (REVL), Reliance Capital Ventures Ltd (RCLVL) and
Global Fuel Management Services Ltd (GFMSL)11.
Table – 3:3. What RIL shareholders will get?
New Co. Per share of RIL Holding

RCVL 1 share of 5 each
REVL 1 share of 10 each
RCLVL 1 share of 10 each
GFMSL 1 share of 5 each
Table - 3:4. Demerger of RIL holdings
New Co Taking over business of RIL Holding
Reliance Communications Infrastructure

RCVL
Ltd 900mn shares each of 1 FV
Reliance Infocomm Ltd 3193mn shares each of 1 FV
Reliance Telecom Ltd 7.1mn shares each of 10 FV
REVL Reliance Energy Ltd 90.9mn shares each of 10 FV

RCLVL Reliance Capital Ltd 60.1mn shares each of 10 FV
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 25.5mn shares each of 10 FV
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 0.5mn shares each of 10 FV
these companies, and these companies are under no obligation to provide the continuing material event
disclosures to the exchange that a listed company is required to.
11
http://www.ril.com/downloads/pdf/RIL_Scheme_of_Demerger_Sept05.pdf accessed in 10th August
2010
126
Since Reliance Capital Ltd and Reliance Energy Ltd are already listed
on the bourses, RCLVL and REVL merged with them respectively. For every
100 shares held in RCLVL shareholders received 5 shares of Reliance Capital
Ltd and for every 100 shares held in Reliance Energy Ventures Ltd
shareholders received 7 shares in Reliance Energy Ltd. The Specified
Shareholders i.e. Trustees of Petroleum Trust (holding 7.5% of RIL) and four
companies - Reliance Aromatics and Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., Reliance
Energy and Project Development Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and
Reliance Polyolefins Pvt. Ltd (collectively holding 4.7% of RIL) held RIL
shares for the economic benefit of RIL shareholders. As a result thereof, the
total number of shares to be issued by each of the resulting companies would
be 1,220mn as against 1,390mn equity shares of RIL.
Godrej Consumer Products Ltd., (GCPL) was the new entity for the
consumer products division of Godrej Soaps Limited (GSL) after demerger
into two new companies. Post demerger, GCPL owns all its brands, which
include some top of the mind brands like Cinthol, Fair Glow, Ezee and Godrej
Hair dye, etc. GCPL is a high growth, highly profitable FMGC operation. A
balance sheet loaded with heavy and a complex product profile did not help
the erstwhile Godrej Soaps get the kind of valuation its peers in the FMGC
sector commanded. In financial year 2000, the contribution of the chemicals
divisions to the overall revenue of the company was to the tune of a substantial
42% while the consumer products business added another 55% to it. This
significantly high contribution from chemical division prevented the company
from being treated as a FMGC company.
A crippling debt burden of about 464.4 crores in 1999 had caused the
market sentiment to turn negative. The problem on valuation front got

127
aggravated by the maze of cross- holdings the company had in many of its
group companies, which included Godrej Foods, Godrej Sara Lee, Godrej
Pillsbury, and Godrej Agrovet. The concern for an abysmally low valuation
and blurred vision toiletries and personal care division into separate entity to
be named as Godrej Consumer Product Ltd. Demerger was looked on as a
strategic step to achieve greater focus on individual businesses in order to gain
competitive edge. The demerger came into effect from April 2001.
After demerger the first quarter of the financial year 01-02 of GCPL as
an independent entity was quite encouraging. GCPL recorded a growth of 10%
in the soap category at a time when the industry as a whole witnessed a
decline of 10%. In the hair color segment too, GCPL registered a growth of
34% as against 20% industry wide growth. It increased market share in both
soaps and hair color segment by 11% and 6% respectively. The company
reduced its debts by 34.4 crores which led to an improvement in its debt-
equity ratio to 0.60% from 1.43%. The company‘s ROCE (Return on Capital
Employed) stood at 65.8% and RONW (Return on Net Worth) at 63.4% for
the period under study12.
The Wockhardt, which had traditionally been a conglomerate,
operating in as diverse business as pharmaceuticals, agri-science, parentals
and hospitals, had been losing focus and was not commanding the kind of
valuations its peers like Ranbaxy and Dr. Reddy were accorded; Dr. Reddy‘s
lab and Ranbaxy enjoyed P/E multiple of more than 80%, while Wockhardt
could manage just 50%. The company‘s woes stemmed from the fact that the
core requirements of each of these businesses – capital, technology and
distribution strength were diverse and hence required total focus.
12
(Case; Godrej Soaps, Mergers and demergers; concept and cases, by Amit Singh Sisodiya, The ICFAI
University Press, 2004)
128
To have focused businesses and improve shareholder wealth, the
company engaged the services of Mc. Kinsey, a global management
consultancy company. Mc. Kinsey recommendations included splitting the
company into two separate business entities to improve valuation. The vertical
split was suggested so as to remove the drug of the large asset base of the non-
pharma business, around 80% of the earning (before interest and depreciation)
of the company were from the pharma division, which had less than 35% of
the total assets. The company believed that ROCE from the current levels of
around 11% would move up to more than 30% for pharma division while for
life science division the same would go down to 6%. The reason for such large
variation in the company‘s ROCE was the massive amount of real estate assets
in the books of the life sciences division. These assets were proving to be a
drag on the group‘s overall profitability.
The rationale behind the demerger was to unlock the full potential of
Wockhardt businesses by creating two separate companies. Wockhardt Ltd
was planned to be totally focused on the knowledge based pharmaceutical
business at the same time concentrating on being globally competitive and
creating large brands, Wockhardt Life Science Ltd was decided to include IV
fluids, agri-sciences and hospital business and leverage on the opportunity to
realize its full growth potential in the next decade. The demerger came into
effect from January 1, 2000. As a process of demerger, the existing company
Wockhardt Ltd was renamed Wockhardt Life Science while the demerged
entity, which comprises pharmaceutical business, was named Wockhardt Life
Science Division. The agri-sciences business, parentals and hospital business
were transferred to Wockhardt Life Sciences Division.
129
Wockhardt registered a healthy growth rate in the both top line as well
as bottom line during the first half of financial year 2002. The company‘s sale
grew by 15.6% while its profit after tax increased by 39%. The company‘s
operating profit during the period grew by an impressive 36%, this helped
operating profit margin to improve by 280 basis points (bps) to 18.4% to
15.6%. The company‘s ROCE also improved remarkably by 450 bps from
21.3% recorded in the last financial year ending Dec.31, 2000 to 25.8% in the
first half of financial year 200213.
Reverse Merger:
A Reverse Merger is a transaction whereby the private company
shareholders may gain control of a public company by merging it in with their
private company. The private company shareholders receive a substantial
majority of the shares of the public company (normally 85% to 90% or more)
and the control of the board of directors. The transaction is accomplished in as
little as two weeks, resulting in the private company becoming a public
company. The transaction does not go through a review process with state and
federal regulators because the public company has already completed the
process. The transaction involves the private and shell14 company exchanging
information on each other, negotiating the merger terms, and signing a share
exchange agreement. At the closing the public shell company issues a
substantial majority of its shares and the board control to the shareholders of
the private company. The private company shareholders pay for the shell and
contribute their private company shares to the shell company and the private
company is now public.

13
Case; Wockhardt, Mergers and demergers; concept and cases, by Amit Singh Sisodiya, The ICFAI
University Press, 2004
14
The publicly traded corporation is called a ―shell‖
130
Arellano and Brusco (2002) carried out study on Reverse Mergers
(RM). Researcher explored the RM technique as a going public method that
was an alternative method to the traditional Initial Public Offering (IPO).
William (2006) also examined the reverse merger method of going public.
Researcher constructed a simple three-period model in which at time zero
nature determines the ―type‖ of the company. The type represents the
probability of getting a positive net present value project at time- two. The
model predicted that under suitable conditions a separating equilibrium exists.
A company with a large enough probability to undertake the project prefers to
issue equity via an IPO, signaling the quality of the project. The model also
predicted that only high quality companies were going to issue equity via an
IPO and that RM was a method followed in general by lower quality
companies. Researcher concluded that an extremely low proportion of
companies that went public through a RM have later issued equity, a total of 8
companies representing 15.3% of sample. They also found evidence
supporting the idea that the cost of a RM that includes a seasoned equity
offering was approximately equal to the cost of an IPO therefore, the argument
that the RM was a cheaper way to go public than the IPO was not supported
by the data.
Gleason et al. (2005) examined 121 RM companies that taken place
predominantly during the technology advancement. They concluded that RM
companies experience from lower profitability and have a shorter existence.
Only 46% of their sample companies carried on for two years following to the
131
merger. Yet, the shareholders of these companies received significance wealth
gains, an average of about 25%, during the 3-day merger announcement
window. Adjei et al. (2007) concluded that RM companies are smaller and
newly developed, and have, on average, an inferior functioning compared to
IPO companies. Further, they found that 42% of companies are delisted within
three years of their establishment due to RM. Based on a larger sample size of
408 RM, Floros and Shastri (2009) also discovered evidence consistent with
earlier studies that RM companies are smaller in size and have poorer
profitability, in fact in some cases, even lower than penny stock IPOs. Up-till
now, no study has explored the characteristics of financial reporting by RM
companies, in general, and by the RM acquiring company‘s country of
domicile in particular.
3.3. Conclusion:
From the above review of the literature related to M & A, it was
observed that M & A has been a business strategy in the recent past and
several companies of various natures have opted for it to enhance their
efficiency. Studies revealed that the M & A increase the size of the companies
and don‘t necessary improve the performance. There was no strong evidence
that diversifying acquisitions were less successful then related ones. It was
also observed that horizontal and vertical mergers showed positive and
significant abnormal return. Synergy was the reason for major takeover over
yet it was found that many takeovers were motivated by agency and hubris.
132
Studies also showed that bad managers were also bad acquirers consistent with
the notion that poor performance drives managers to try something new. The
hubris hypothesis concluded that acquisitions occur because managers make
mistake in evaluating target companies and the takeover premium merely
reflects a random errors. Despite cross country study, the question remains
enigmatic as to why managers indulge in takeover game since wealth
maximization hypothesis remain unresolved dilemma which provides fertile
ground to study the M & A during post liberalization phase that has witnessed
setting up the regulatory institutions as also enactment of new laws to regulate
the capital market.
133
3.1. Appendix
Table - 3:1. Evidence from short-run event studies
Author(s) (year) Period of study Details of sample Event window Statistical Method Main findings
Firth (1980) 1969–1975 642 takeovers Announcement OLS Regression Average cumulated residuals of −0.045 during the
month announcement month (statistical significance not reported).
Dodd (1980) 1970–1977 151 takeovers −40 to +40 days OLS Regression Acquirers lost by 0.23% (insignificant) at the announcement
date from completed offers.
Bradley et al. (1983) 1962–1980 241 successful acquirers −20 to +20 days OLS Regression Unsuccessful acquirers gained, on average, 2.32% over −20 to
and targets, 94 +1 day, but lost by 2.96% as soon as the offer failure is
unsuccessful acquirers revealed (+2 to +20 days). Both statistically significant.
Unsuccessful acquirers exhibited insignificant loss of 0.64%
over −20 to +20 day period.
Franks and Harris 1955–1985 1058 acquirers, 1898 −4 to +1 months OLS Regression Acquirers earned around 1% average abnormal returns during
(1989) target firms (all successful) the announcement month (significant). During the period −4
to +1 month, acquirers gained between 2.4% and 7.9%
depending on the abnormal returns measure (both
significant).
Lang et al. (1989) 1968–1986 87 targets and acquirers −5 to +5 days OLS Regression Negative impact on acquirers returns when the offer is made
from successful tender by a low Tobin’s q company. Acquirers earned 0.8% from
offers unopposed offers and lost by 0.14% from opposed offers
(neither is significant).
Mitchell and Lehn 1980–1988 228 hostile targets, 240 −1 to +1 days OLS Regression Abnormal returns of −1.66% to acquiring companies that are
(1990) friendly targets, 232 restructured following the offer and 0.70% to acquiring
bidders companies that are not restructured in the post-offer period
(both significant).
Lang et al. (1991) 1968–1986 87 targets and bidders −5 to +5 days OLS Regression Negative abnormal returns noticed in the range of 6% to 7%
from successful tender from single acquirer, opposed offers (significant). Insignificant
offers abnormal returns to multiple, opposed offers.
Smith and Kim (1994) 1980–1986 177 acquirers and targets −5 to +5 days OLS Regression Acquirers lost by 0.23% over −1 to 0 days (significant)
Holl and Kyriazis 1979–1989 178 successful acquirers 0 to +2 months OLS Regression Negative abnormal returns of 1.25% to acquirers showed two
(1997) months after the bid announcement (significant)
134
Table - 3:1. Evidence from short-run event studies
Higson and Elliot 1975–1990 1660 acquirers and targets 0 to +3 months OLS Regression Insignificant gains noticed between announcements until
(1998) completion. Negative acquirer returns of 1.70% (significant)
from the acquisition of large targets (i.e. Greater than 25% of
acquirer’s market capitalization).
Walker (2000) 1980–1996 278 acquisitions, 230 −2 to +2 days OLS Regression Negative market adjusted abnormal returns of 0.84%
mergers, 48 tender offers (significant). No significant abnormal returns based on the
industry and size matched benchmark portfolios.
Sudarsanam and 1983–1995 519 listed acquirers −1 to +1 day OLS Regression Acquirers noticed abnormal returns between −1.39% and
Mahate (2003) −1.47% (all significant) using a variety of benchmarks.
Gupta and Misra 1980–1998 285 M&A −10 to +10 days OLS Regression Bidders lose a significant 1.57% over the −1 to 0 day period.
(2004) Returns for the −10 to −2 days or +1 to +10 days are
insignificant.
Song and Walking 1985–2001 5726 M&A −1 to 0 days OLS Regression Acquiring firms with a period of more than a year of ‘dormant’
(2004) offer activity received a positive abnormal return of about 1%.
Acquirers with a ‘dormant’ period of less than a year earn
insignificant returns
Campa and Hernando 1998–2000 262 European M&A −30 to +30 days OLS Regression Regulated EU acquirers lost by 1.96% over 60 days around the
(2004) offer announcement. Acquirers from unregulated industries
did not earned significant returns for the same period.
Ben-Amar and Andre 1998–2000 238 M&A by 138 Canadian −1 to +1 days OLS Regression Acquiring companies earned 1.6% over 3 days.
(2006) companies
135
Table - 3:2. Evidence from long-run event studies
Firth (1980) 1969–1975 642 takeovers −48 to +36 months OLS Regression Average Abnormal returns noticed −1.0% to unsuccessful and
−4.8% to successful bidders over 84 months around the
announcement date (statistical significance not reported)
Asquith (1983) 1962–1976 285 takeovers +1 to +240 days OLS Regression Average Abnormal returns lost by 7.2% to successful bidders
and 9.6% loss noticed to unsuccessful bidders in the post-
outcome period (both significant).
Bradley et al. (1983) 1962–1980 241 successful and 94 unsuccessful −6 to +60 months OLS Regression No significant gains shown to unsuccessful bidders over the
bidders period −20 to +180 days following the bid announcement
Malatesta (1983) 1969–1974 256 acquiring firms −60 to +12 months OLS Regression 0.043% average abnormal return from −60 months until the
announcement month (significant). −0.054% average abnormal
return (significant) from month 1 after the offer until 6 months
afterwards
Franks and Harris 1955–1985 1058 bidders, 1898 target firms, all 0 to +24 months OLS Regression −12.6% significant average abnormal return from the market
(1989) successful model. +4.5% average abnormal return (significant) from the
CAPM.
Limmack (1991) 1977–1986 529 M&A 0 to +24 months OLS Regression Insignificant −1.66% from month 0 to 12 months after the offer
and insignificant −4.67% over 24 months (CAPM). −5.55%
(significant) after 12 months and −14.96% (significant) after 24
months.
Agrawal et al. (1992) 1955–1987 937 mergers and 227 tender offers 0 to +5 years OLS Regression Abnormal returns of −10.26% (significant) to acquirers 5 years
following the offer. Mergers exhibited significantly negative
abnormal returns of 10% while tender offers shown insignificant
abnormal returns up to 5 years after the offer.
Gregory (1997) 1955–1985 420 UK takeovers with bid values >£10 0 to +24 months OLS Regression Different benchmark methods controlling for companies size,
million risk and growth opportunities reveal significant abnormal
returns from −8.15% to −11.25% over the 24-month post-
acquisition period. Between 31% and 37% of companies earn
positive abnormal returns.
Loughran and Vijh 1970–1989 434 mergers and tender offers 0 to +5 years OLS Regression Average acquirer lost by −6.5% (insignificant) 5 years after the
(1997) bid.
136
Table - 3:2. Evidence from long-run event studies
Higson and Elliot (1998) 1975–1990 1660 acquirers and targets 0 to +3 months OLS Regression Noticed insignificant loss of 0.74% over +1 to +12 months,
−0.14% after 24 months, +0.83% after
36 months (all insignificant).
Sudarsanam and 1983–1995 519 listed acquirers +1 to +750 days OLS Regression Significant abnormal returns of between −8.71 and −21.89% (all
Mahate (2003) significant) based on size and MTB ratio portfolio return
adjustment, market return and mean adjustment.
Gregory and 1984–1992 197 bids by UK acquirers on US targets, 0 to +5 years OLS Regression Significant abnormal return of −9.36 and −27% over years +3
McCorriston (2005) 97 bids by UK acquirers on EU targets and +5 respectively in the US. No significant abnormal returns
and 39 bids by UK acquirers on targets from EU offers, but positive gain noticed from offers other than
from countries other than US or EU EU countries or the US.
Conn et al. (2005) 1984–1998 131 cross border public targets, 1009 0 to +36 months OLS Regression Public domestic acquirers lost by 19.78% on average over 36
cross border bids on private targets, months. The BHAR returns are control company adjusted
2628 bids on domestic private targets (matched by size and MTB ratios).
Alexandritis et al. 1991–1998 179 successful public acquiring firms 0 to +36 months OLS Regression Abnormal returns noticed between −0.55% to 1.02% (all
(2006) significant) from the CAPM and Fama and French models. Both
based on equally weighted and value weighted portfolios
137
References
Adjei, F. Cyree, B. and Walker, M. (2007), "The Determinants and Survival of
Reverse Mergers versus IPOs," Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 32(2),
pp. 176-194.
Agrawal, A. Jaffe, J. and Mandelker, G. (1992), ―The post merger performance of
acquiring firms‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 47 (4), pp. 1605–1621.
Alexandridis, G. Antoniou, A. and Zhao, H. (2006), ―Valuation effect of
institutional ownership: the case of corporate takeovers‖, European Financial
Management, Cass Business School Research Paper; CFERF Research Paper.
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=884247 accessed 20th July 2011.
Andrews, K., (1971), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Homewood, Illinois:
Dow Jones Irwin.
Anslinger, Patricia, L. and Thomas E. (1996), ―Growth Through Acquisitions: A
Fresh Look‖, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 (1), pp. 126-135.
Arellano-Ostoa, A. and Brusco, S. (2002), ―Understanding Reverse Mergers: A
First Approach‖, Working Paper, de Madrid, Spain: Universidad Carlos III
Asquith, P. (1983), ―Merger bids, uncertainty, and stockholder returns‖, Journal
of Financial Economics, Vol. 11(1-4), pp. 51–83.
Asquith, P. Bruner, R. and Mullins, D. (1983), ―The gains to bidding firms from
merger‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 11 (1-4), pp. 121–139.
138
Babbile, E. (1998), ―The Practice of Social Research‖, 8th edition, Belmont,
California: Wordsworth Publishing Company.
Bae, Kee-Hong, Kang, Jun-Koo, and Kim, Jin-Mo., (2002), ―Tunneling or Value
Added? Evidence from Mergers by Korean Business Groups‖, Journal of
Finance, Vol. 57 (6), pp. 2695-2740.
Banning, C. (1999), ―Ownership Concentration and Bank Acquisition Strategy:
An Empirical Examination‖, International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
Vol. 7(2), pp. 135-152.
Ben-Amar, W. and Andre, P. (2006), ―Separation of ownership from control and
acquiring firm performance: the case of family ownership in Canada‖, Journal of
Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 33 (3-4), pp. 517–543.
Berkovitch, E. and Narayanan, P. (1993), ―Motives for Takeovers: An Empirical
Investigation‖, Journal of Finance and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 28 (3), pp.
347-362.
Bradley, M. Desai, A. and Kim E. (1983), ―The rationale behind inter-firm tender
offers‖, Journal Financial Economics, Vol. 11 (1-4), pp. 183–206.
Bradley, M. Desai, A. and Kim E. (1988), ―Synergistic gains from corporate
acquisitions and their division between the stockholders of target and acquiring
firms‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 21 (1), pp. 3–40.
Brigham, E. and Ehrhardt, M. (2002), Financial Management—Theory and

th
Practice, 10 ed Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
139
Bris, A. and Cabolis, C. (2008) ―The value of investor protection: Firm evidence
from cross-border mergers‖, The Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 21 (2), pp.
605-49.
Campa, J. and Hernando, I. (2004), ―Shareholder value creation in European M &
A‖, European Financial Management, Vol. 10 (1), pp. 47–81.
Caves, E. (1971), ―International Corporations: The industrial economics of foreign
investment‖, Economica, Vol. 38 (149), pp. l-27.
Caves, R. (1982), Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis, Cambridge,
MAJ Cambridge University Press.
Things Come to an End? The Performance of Multiple Acquirers‖, EFMA
Working Paper, Miami University. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=
499310 accessed on 15th May 2011.
Danbolt, J. (2004), ―Target company cross-border effects in acquisitions into the
UK‖, European Financial Management, Vol. 10 (1), pp. 83-108.
Dasgupta, N. (2004), Corporate Governance Structure, Mergers and Takeovers in
India in the Post-Liberalization Regime—Proposals and Policies, Calcutta:
Bethune College. http://www.utiicm.com/cmc/PDFs/2000/nandita_dasgupta.pdf
accessed on 10th June 2010.
140
Eun, Cheol, S. Kolodny, R. and Scheraga C. (1996), ―Cross-Border Acquisitions
and Shareholder Wealth: Tests of the Synergy and Internalization Hypotheses‖,
Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 20(9), pp. 1559-1582.
Fama, E. (1990), ―Contract costs and financing decisions‖, Journal of Business,
Vol. 63 (1), pp. 71-91.
Fama, E. and French, K. (1993), ―Common risk factors on the returns on stocks
and bonds‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 33 (1), pp. 3–56.
Firth, M. (1980), ―Takeovers, shareholder returns and the theory of the firm‖,
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 94 (2), pp. 235–260.
Floros, I. and Shastri, K. (2009), ―A Comparison of Penny Stock Initial Public
Offerings and Reverse Mergers as Alternative Mechanisms to Going Public‖,
Social Science Research Network, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=
1460979 accessed in 10th July 2011.
Fluck, Z. and Lynch, W. (1999), ―Why do firms merge and then divest? A theory
of financial synergy‖, Journal of Business, Vol.72 (3), pp. 319-346.
takeovers: the U.K. experience 1955-1985‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.
23 (2), pp.225-249.
Froot, A. and Stein, J. (1991), ―Exchange rates and foreign direct investment: An
imperfect capital market approach‖, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 106
(4), pp. 1191-1217.
Corporate Acquisitions?‖, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 7 (2), pp. 151-178.
141
Gleason, K., Ravi, J., and Rosenthal, L., (2006), ―Alternatives for going Public:
Evidence from Reverse Takeovers, Self-Underwritten IPOs, and Traditional
IPOs‖, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=890714 accessed on 10th July
2011
Goergen, M. and Renneboog, L. (2004), ―Shareholder Wealth Effects of European
Domestic and Cross Border Takeover Bids‖, European Financial Management,
Vol. 10 (1), pp. 9-45.
Gregory, A. (1997), ―An examination of the long run performance of UK
acquiring firms‖, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 24 (7-8), pp.
971–1007.
Gregory, A. and McCorriston, S. (2005), ―Foreign acquisitions by UK limited
companies: short- and long-run performance‖, Journal of Empirical Finance, Vol.
12 (1), pp. 99–125.
Grinblatt, M. and Titman, S. (2002), Financial Markets and Corporate Strategy,

nd
2 ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Groenewold, N. and Fraser, P. (2000), ―Forecasting beta: how well does the five
year rule of thumb do?‖, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 27 (7-
8), pp. 953–982.
Gupta, A. and Misra, L. (2004), ―Deal size, premium paid and the gains in
financial mergers: the impact of managerial motivation‖, The Financial Review,
Vol. 42 (3), pp. 373-400.
142
Hagerdoorn, J. & Duysters, G. (2002),―External sources of innovative capabilities:
The preference for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions‖, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 39 (2), pp. 167-185.
Harris, R. and Ravenscraft, D. (1991), ―The role of acquisitions in foreign direct
investment: Evidence from the U.S. stock market, Journal of Finance, Vol. 46 (3),
pp. 825-844.
Haspeslagh, Philippe C. and David B. (1991), Managing Acquisitions: Creating
Value Through Corporate Renewal, New York: Free Press.
Healy, P. Palepu, K. and Ruback, R. (1992), ―Does Corporate performance
improve after mergers, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 31 (2), pp. 135-175.
Higson, C. and Elliot, J. (1998), ―Post-takeover returns: the UK evidence‖,
Journal of Empirical Finance, Vol. 5 (1), pp. 27–46.
Holl, P. and Kyriazis, D. (1997), ―Wealth creation and bid resistance in UK
takeover bids‖, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 (6), pp. 483–498.
Hymer, H. (1976), The international operations of national firms: A study of
direct foreign Investment, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Jarrell, G. and Poulsen, A. (1989), ―The Returns to Acquiring Firms in Tender
Offers: Evidence from Three Decades‖, Financial Management, Vol. 18 (3), pp.
12-19.
Jarrell, G. Brinkley, J. and Netter, J. (1988), ―The market for corporate control:
The empirical evidence since 1980, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 2 (1),
pp. 49-68.
143
Jensen, M. (1986), ―Agency costs of free cash flows, corporate finance, and
takeovers‖, American Economic Review, Vol. 76 (2), pp. 323-329.
Jensen, M. (1988), ―Takeovers: Their causes and consequences‖, Journal of
Economic Perspectives, Vol.2 (1), pp. 21-48.
Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976), ‗Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour,
Agency Costs and Ownership Structure‘, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.
3(4), pp. 305-360.
Jing, S. (2012), ―Analysis of Merger and Acquisition Strategy of Multinationals in
China and Chinese Enterprises Countermeasures‖, Cross-Cultural
Communication, Vol.8 (2), pp. 56-60.
Joseph, B. (2001), ―Not all M & As are Alike –And that Matters‖, Harvard
Business Review, pp. 93-101.
Jun-Koo. (1993), ―The international market for corporate control: Mergers and
acquisitions of U.S. firms by Japanese firms‖, Journal of Financial Economics,
Vol. 34 (3), pp. 345-371.
Kaplan, S. and Weisbach, M. (1992), ―The Success of Acquisitions: Evidence
From Divestitures‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 47 (1), pp. 107-138.
Katsuhiko, I. and Noriyuki, D. (1983): ―The Performances of Merging Firms in
Japanese Manufacturing Industry: 1964-75‖, The Journal of Industrial Economics,
Vol. 31 (3), pp. 257-266.
144
Kennedy, V. and Limmack, R. (1996), ―Takeover activity, CEO turnover and the
market for corporate control‖, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol.
23 (2), pp. 267–285.
Kim, E. Han, and Singal. (2000), ―Stock Market Openings: Experience of
Emerging Economies‖, Journal of Business, Vol. 73 (1), pp. 25-66.
Kindleberger, P. (1969), American business abroad: Six Lectures on Direct
Investment, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kode, G. Ford, J. and Sutherland, M. (2003), ―A conceptual model for evaluation
of synergies in mergers and acquisitions: a critical review of the literature‖, South
African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 34 (1), pp. 27-38.
La Porta, R. Lopez-de, S. and Shleifer, A. (1999), ―Corporate Ownership around
the World‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 54 (2). pp. 471-517.
Lang, L. Stulz, R. and Walking, R. (1989), ―Managerial performance, Tobin‘s q
and gains from successful tender offers‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 24
(1), pp. 137–154.
Lang, L. Stulz, R. and Walking, R. (1991), ―A test of the free cash flow
hypothesis: the case of bidder returns‖, Journal Financial Economics, Vol. 29 (2),
pp. 315–335.
Limmack, J. (1991), ―Corporate mergers and wealth effects: 1977–86‖,
Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 21 (83), pp. 239–251.
Loughran, T. and Vijh M. (1997), ―Do Long-term Shareholders Benefit from
Corporate Acquisitions?‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 52 (5), pp. 1765-1790.
145
Lubatkin, M. (1983), ―Mergers and Performance of the Acquiring Firm‖,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 (2), pp. 218-225.
Maksimovic, V. and Phillips, G. (2001), ― The Market for Corporate Assets; Who
engages in Mergers and Asset Sales and Are There Efficiency Gain?‖, Journal of
Finance, Vol. 56 (6), pp. 2019-2065.
Malatesta, P. (1983), ―The wealth effects of merger activity and the objective
function of merging firms‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 11 (1-4), pp.
155–181.
Mantravadi, P. and Reddy, A. (2007), ―Relative size in mergers and operating
performance: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 42 (39), pp. 3936-3942.
Maquieira, P. William, L. and Lance, N. (1988), ―Wealth Creation Versus Wealth
Redistributions in Pure Stock-For-Stock Mergers‖, Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 48 (1), pp. 3-33.
performance of European Acquisitions‖, International Mergers and Acquisitions
Activity since 1990: Recent Research and Quantitative Analysis, Massachusetts:
Elsevier.
Marks, M. and Mirvis, P. (1986), ``The Merger Syndrome'', Psychology Today,
Vol. 20 (10), pp. 36-42.
Marks, M. and Mirvis, P. (1997), ―Revisiting the merger syndrome: Dealing with
Stress, Mergers and Acquisitions: The Dealer makers Journal, Vol. 31 (6), pp. 21-
27.
146
Marks, M. and Mirvis, P. (1997), ―Revisiting the merger syndrome: crisis
management part 2'', Mergers and Acquisitions: The Dealer makers Journal, Vol.
32 (1), pp. 34-40.
Marris, R. (1964), The Economic Theory of Managerial Capitalism, London:
Macmillan.
Masulis, W. Wang, C. and Xie, F. (2007), ―Corporate Governance and Acquirer
Returns‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 62 (4), pp. 1851–1889.
Matsusaka, G. (1993), ―Takeover motives during the conglomerate merger wave‖,
Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 24 (3), pp. 357-379.
Matthew, R. and David, T. (2008), ―The Market for Mergers and the Boundaries
of the Firm‖, Journal of Finance, Vol.63 (3), pp. 1169-1211.
Michael, P. (2008), ―Developing regional financial markets : the case of East
Asia‖,: DIE, (Discussion Paper / DeutschesInstitutfürEntwicklungspolitik ;
18/2008) www.die-gdi.de/CMS-Homepage/...nsf/.../DP%2018.2008.pdf accessed
on 10th July 2011.
Mihkel, T. (2002), ―Mergers to Monopoly‖, Journal of Economic & Management
Strategy, Vol.11 (3), pp. 513-546.
Mitchell, M. and Lehn, K. (1990), ―Do bad bidders become good targets‖, Journal
of Political Economy, Vol. 98 (2), pp. 372–398.
Mulherin, J. and Boone, A. (2000), ―Comparing acquisitions and divestitures‖,
Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 6 (2), pp. 117–139.
Patell, J. (1976), "Corporate Forecasts of Earnings Per Share and Stock Price
Behavior." Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 14 (2), pp. 246-276.
147
Randall, M. Andrei, S. and Robert, W. (1990), ―Do Managerial Objectives Drive
Bad Acquisitions?”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 45(1), pp. 31-48.
Rizvi, Y. (2008), ‗Picking the flowers‘; Acquisition, Strategy as a tool for survival
and growth a research paper submitted to 11th Strategic Management Forum, IIT
Kanpur.
Roll, R. (1986), ―The Hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers‖, Journal of
Business, Vol. 59 (2), pp. 197-216.
Ronald, D. and Hemmo, K. (2001), ―Mergers and Acquisitions in a Global
Context Reaction of Price and Earnings Estimates‖, Journal of Investing, Vol. 10,
(2) pp. 29-35
Rotting, D. (2007), ―Successfully Managing International Mergers and
Acquisitions: A Descriptive Framework‖, International Business: Research
Teaching and Practice, Vol.1 (1), pp. 97-118. http://new.aibse.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/07Rottig.pdf accessed on 10th July 2011.
Schmidt, S. and Rühli E. (2002), ―Prior strategy processes as a key to
understanding mega-mergers: The Novartis case‖, European Management
Journal, Vol. 20 (3), pp. 223–234.
Scholes, S. and Wolfson, M. (1989), ―The effects of changes in tax laws on
corporate reorganization activity‖, Journal of Business, Vol. 63 (1), pp.141-164.
Servaes, H. (1991), ―Tobin‘s Q and the Gains from Takeovers‖, Journal of
Finance, Vol. 46 (1), pp. 409-419.
148
Seth, A. Song, P. and Pettit, R. (2000), ―Synergy, Managerialism or Hubris? An
empirical examination of motives for foreign acquisitions of U.S. firms‖, Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 31 (3), pp. 387-405.
Singh, M. and Goodrich, J. (2006), ―Succession in Family-Owned Businesses: A
Case Study of Reliance Industries-India‖ Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=954715 accessed on 20th July 2011.
Sirower, M. (1997), The Synergy Trap: How companies lose the acquisition game,
New York: The Free Press.
Smith, A. and Kim, J. (1994), ―The combined effects of free cash flow and
financial slack on bidder and target stock returns‖, Journal of Business, Vol. 67
(2), pp. 281– 310.
Song, M. and Walking, R. (2004), ―Anticipation acquisitions and the bidder return
puzzle‖, Working Paper, Ohio State University. www.cob.ohio-
state.edu/fin/dice/seminars/walkling.pdf accessed on 10th July 2011.
Starks, L. and Wei, K. (2004) ―Cross-border mergers and differences in corporate
governance‖, European Finance Association Meeting Proceeding.
http://jcooney.ba.ttu.edu/ Finance_ Department_Fall_2004_Seminar_Series_
files/cross-border%20merger%20paper%20july%202004.pdf accessed on 20th
Nov 2010.
Steven, K. and Michael W. (1992), ―The Success of Acquisitions: Evidence from
Divestitures‖, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 3484,
New Working Papers Series, pp.1-28
149
Sudarsanam, S., and Mahate, A., (2003), ―Glamour acquirers, method of payment
and post-acquisition performance: the UK evidence‖, Journal of Business Finance
and Accounting, Vol. 30 (1-2), pp. 299–341.
Timothy, A. Hun Y. Kwangwoo, and Kazunori, S. (2003), ―Long-term
Diversification and Affiliation‖, American Finance Association, Washington D.C,
pp. 1-40.
Vedpuriswar, V. (2003), ―Managing risks in Merger and Acquisitions‖, The IUP
Journal of Management Research, ICFAI Press.
Vojislav, M. and Phillips, G. (2001), ―The market for corporate assets: who
engages in mergers and asset sales and are there efficiency gains?‖, Journal of
Finance, Vol. 56 (6), pp. 2019-2065.
Walker, M. (2000). ―Corporate takeovers, strategic objectives, and acquiring firm
shareholder wealth‖, Financial Management, Vol.29 (1), pp. 53–66.
Weston, J. and Mansinghka, S. (1971), ―Tests of the Efficiency Performance of
Conglomerate Firms‖, Journal of Finance, Vol.26 (4), pp. 919-936.
William, K. (2008), ―The Truth About Reverse Mergers‖, Entrepreneurial
Business Law Journal, Vol. 2. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=
1028651 accessed on 10th July 2011.
150
CHAPTER - 4
LEGAL ASPECTS OF MERGERS AND

ACQUISITIONS
A modern, statutory competition regime materialized in India only
after the implementation of economic reform in 1991. The relative belatedness
of development of Competition Act is a mystifying fact. For last three
decades, Indian government had been a primary proponent of the neoliberal
philosophy that places faithfulness in markets as the most proficient means of
assigning public resources. Yet the prologue of the essential corollary, an
operative policy thought-out to monitor newly competitive market did not
emerge until year 2011. This chapter presents comprehensive economic
assessment of India's emerging competition policy regime. Section 2 assesses
the Competition Act, 2002. Section 3 describes comparison of Competition
Act, 2002 with the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969
(MRTP) Section 4 shows applicable legal provision in case of M & A in India.
Section 5 presents M & A and consumer protection and Section 6 outlines the
conclusion.
4.1. Introduction:
Indian business enterprises were subjected to rigorous regulatory
regime before 1990s. This has led to asymmetrical growth of Indian corporate
enterprises during that period (Agarwal, 1999).The economic transformation
initiated by the Government of India since 1991, has influenced the
governance, and led to acceptance of different growth and expansion
approaches by the business enterprises. In that course of action, Mergers and
151
Acquisitions (M & A) have emerged as a phenomenon to reckon with. M & A
are not new in the Indian economy. In the past also, companies have used M &
A to expand but now, Indian corporate enterprises are focusing on the lines of
global competitiveness, market share, core competence, and consolidation.
This procedure of refocusing has further been hastened by the arrival of
foreign competitors. In this backdrop, Indian corporate business enterprises
have commenced reshuffling movements through M & A to create a
remarkable presence and expand in their core areas of interest, to acquire
competitive edge. Closely on the heals of this development, the law aimed at
fostering and promoting competition has also evolved.
In 1990, the first effort in regulating takeovers in India was made in a
limited way by inserting Clause 40 in the Listing Agreement that provided for
making a public offer to the shareholders of a company by any person who
wanted to acquire 25% or more of the voting rights of the company. Apart
from this, mergers, acquisitions and takeovers were regulated by Companies
Act, 1956, Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, MRTP Act,
1969, FERA, 1973, Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985,
Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Securities Contract
Regulation Act, 1956 (SCRA) (with respect to transfer of shares of listed
companies vide clauses 40A and 40B) (Tambi, 2005). In case of multinational
companies related M & A; provisions of the FERA were applied which
enforced a general limit on foreign ownership at 40%. Moreover, in the event
of a hostile offer for the company, the board of a company, under Section 22A
of the SCRA, had the power to decline transfer of shares 15to a specific buyer,
thereby making it virtually unfeasible for a takeover to occur without the

15
In case of Escorts Ltd. and DCM Ltd., takeover by Swaraj Paul, Chairman of CAPARO Group of
Companies, The management of former declined to register acquired shares to avert the takeover.
152
acknowledgment of the management of the target company. The scope of
hostile takeovers (not of friendly takeovers) was restricted in India prior to
1991. According to Section 108 of the Companies Act 1956, the rejection to
transfer shares by the company board could be on two reasons; that the
transfer was against the welfare of the company, or against public interest.
Also, prior to the 1990s, an open offer was compulsory for acquiring 25%
stake in a company. In 1990, this upper limit was reduced to 10% of a
company‘s capital (Bagchi, 1999; the Companies Act, 1956).
The procedure of M & A in India is court determined, long drawn, and
therefore problematic. A listed company commencing a court driven
restructuring execution will have to go through a tiered structure of
approaching the regional director, the high court, the shareholders / creditors,
registrars of companies and the stock exchange. This entire procedure can take
anywhere between 6 to 8 months and, in some cases; have taken more than
one year (Teena, 2005). The procedure may be commenced through common
contracts between the two parties, but that is not adequate to provide a legal
shield to it. The authorization by the High Court is mandatory for bringing
M & A into effect. The Companies Act, 1956 strengthens stipulation involving
M & A and other narrated problems of negotiations, arrangements, and
reconstructions. However, other necessities of the Companies Act get invoked
at different times and in each case of M & A and the process remain far from
trouble-free. The Central Government has a role to play in this procedure and
it acts through an Official Liquidator (OL)/ the Regional Director of the
Ministry of Company Affairs. The entire procedure has to be followed to the
satisfaction of the Court.
153
4.2. Competition Act 2002:
The Competition Act, 2002 of India declares that it is a law to promote
and preserve competition in Indian market to serve consumer interest while
defending the freedom of economic action of several market contestants and to
preclude practices which influence competition and to set-up a commission for
these purposes.
In the pursuit of globalization, India has responded by removing
controls and resorting to liberalization. The natural outcome of this is that the
Indian market should be geared to face competition from within the country,
and outside (Viswanathan, 2003). To take care of the needs of the trading,
industry and business associations, the Central Government decided to enact a
law on competition. Finance Minister, Chidambaram (2003) highlighted the
need to have a strong legal system and said ―A world class legal system is
absolutely essential to support an economy that aims to be world class. India
needs to take a hard look at its commercial laws and the system of dispensing
justice in commercial matters.‖16Exercising the power vested in the Central
Government, it has established the Competition Commission of India (CCI)
having its head office at New Delhi with effect from October 14, 2003 but
could not be made operational due to filing of a writ petition before the
Supreme Court. While addressing of the writ appeal on the 20th January,
2005, the Supreme Court held that if a professional body is to be formed by
the Union Government, it might be suitable for the Government to think
creation of two separate bodies.
16
The Competition Act, 2002 which received assent of the President of India on January 13, 2003 and was published in the
Gazette of India dated January 14, 2003. Some of the sections of the Act were brought into force on March 31, 2003 and majority
of the other sections on June 19, 2003. However, the entire Act has still not come into force.
154
The Commission is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a
common seal. It may establish offices at other places in India. The
Commission consists of a Chairperson and not less than two and not more than
10 other members to be appointed by the Central Government, as on 28th May
2012 the Commission consisted following members;
(CCI website, 25th May 2012)
4.2.1 The Competition Authority:
The Authority is a multi-member body comprising of both full time as

well as part time members, who are specialists in the field of economics,
business, administration, international trade, and law. Selection of the
members is done in a manner that ensures qualitative standing of the body.
Only active persons of honesty and competence are employed as full time
members, instead of retired judges or civil servants. Proceedings of the
authority should be rule-bound, non-discriminatory, and transparent. The
authority is located at New Delhi, with its benches at Calcutta, Mumbai, and
Chennai. The authority should have its nodal positions in at least all the States
of the country17 with restricted powers and functions.
17
No Nodal positions established in any States of India by CCI till 1st June 2012
(http://www.cci.gov.in/ accessed on 24st June 2012).
155
The authority have apparent accountability in the field of competition-
education and competition advocacy to make sure public awareness of the
competition values in order to encourage a healthy rivalry culture in the
country. The nodal positions of the Authority should be made to bear
responsibilities in the boulevard of competition-education and competition
advocacy. The authority should have its own research & investigative staff and
should be supported with enough budget and authorities for conducting
meticulous research and inquiries. This division, however, should not have
prosecutorial authorities in order to shield the truthfulness of its functions.
4.2.2 Highlights of Competition Act 2002:
The Act requires setting up of Competition Commission of India (CCI)
to prevent practices having unfavorable outcome on competition, to encourage
and keep up competition in markets, to safeguard welfare of consumers and to
make sure freedom of trade carried out by other participants in markets. CCI
proscribes enterprises to penetrate into anti-competitive contracts, abusing
their dominant circumstance and forming combinations.
Scope of CCI: CCI shall look into any suspected encroachment under the Act;
(a) Either on its own motion, or
(b) On acceptance of a complaint from any individual, consumer or their
trade association, or
(c) On references made by the Central Government, State Governments or
any statutory authority.
156
Act taking place outside India but having an effect on competition in
India, CCI shall notwithstanding that an agreement has been entered into
outside India; or any party to such agreement is outside India; or any
enterprise abuses its dominant position is outside India; or a combination has
taken place outside India; or any party to combination is outside India; or any
other matter or practice or action arising out of such agreement or dominant
position or combination is outside India which causes an appreciable adverse
effect on competition in the relevant market in India,
CCI has the power;
To inquire into such agreement or abuse of dominant position or
combination if such agreement or dominant position or combination has,
or is likely to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in the
relevant market of India.
To grant interim relief or award compensation,
Impose penalty,
To grant any other appropriate relief.
To levy penalty for contravention of its orders, making of false statements
or omission to furnish material information, etc.
Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts: According to section 61, No civil
court shall have the jurisdiction to consider any suit or legal proceedings in
respect of any matter which CCI is authorized by or under the Act to
determine. Also, no injunction can be granted by any court or other authority
in reverence of any prosecution taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power
conferred by or under the Act. CCI is not compelled by the procedure laid
down by Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principles
of natural justice. CCI, thus, has the power to regulate its own process.
157
Division of dominant enterprise: CCI can give an opinion to the Central
Government division of a dominant enterprise to ensure that it does not abuse
its position. On the recommendation, the Central Government under Section
28 of the Act may direct division of such an enterprise.
Appeal from CCI: Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of CCI
may file an appeal to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the date of the
communication of the decision or order. It shall be in such form and be
accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed. An appeal may be entertained
by the Appellate Tribunal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it
is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.
The Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the
transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011:
1) Meaning of „Combination‟: The term 'combination' for the purposes of the
Competition Act is defined in section-5 of the Act, to include any acquisition
of shares, voting rights, control or assets or merger or amalgamation of
enterprises, where the parties to the acquisition, merger or amalgamation
satisfy the prescribed monetary thresholds in relation to the size of the
acquired enterprise and the combined size of the acquiring and acquired
enterprises18 with regard to the assets and turnover of such enterprises.
A. Threshold for size of targeted companies: A transaction will be a
‗combination‘ for the purposes of the Act and require approval of CCI
only if the size of the targeted company is at least 250 Crores in terms of
assets or 750 Crores in terms of turnover. It means that if the targeted
18
An enterprise for the purposes of the Competition Act includes all entities within a ‗group‘, defined to
mean controlling entities, controlled entities and entities under common control. In this context,
'control' means exercising at least 50% of voting rights, appointing at least 50% of directors or
management control
158
company has assets of less than 250 Crores or turnover of less than 750
Crores, based on the most recent audited financial statements of the
entities involved, notification and approval requirements under the
combination provisions (i.e. section 5) of the Competition Act are not
required.
B. Threshold for combined size of acquiring and targeted companies: A
transaction attracts the combination provisions of the Competition Act
only if the combined size of acquiring and a targeted companies, upon
completion of the transaction, meets the following thresholds:
ASSETS TURNOVER
No
1,500 Crores 4,500 Crores
In India Group
Group 6,000 Crores 18,000 Crores
ASSETS TURNOVER
Global India Global India
Assets Assets Turnover Turnover
In India or
No USD $750 750 USD $2.25 2,250
outside
Group million Crores billion Crores
USD $3 750 USD $9 2,250
Group
billion Crores billion Crores
C. Meaning of „assets‟ and „turnover‟: The Act does not define ‗assets‘ but
provides for purpose of valuation of assets to be based upon the book
value of the assets as shown in the audited books of account of the
company, in the financial year immediately preceding the date of
transaction. Under the Act, value of assets includes brand value, goodwill
and value of intellectual property but eliminates depreciation. Further, the
159
Act defines ‗turnover‘ to include the value of sale of goods or services, the
Combination Regulations clarify that indirect taxes will be excluded from
the computation of turnover.
2) Transitory Dealings: Under the Combination Regulations, the dealings
agreed pursuant to definitive documentation prior to June 1, 2011 have been
exempted.
A. Acquisition/acquisition of control: For every acquisition of shares or
control (resulting into combination), the CCI is enforced to be notified
only if the ‗binding document(s)‘ (i.e. a document conveying a decision to
acquire control, shares or voting rights) in relation to such acquisition is
executed on or after June 1, 2011.
B. Merger/amalgamation: For every merger/amalgamation (following into
combination), the CCI is to be notified only if the date of sanction (i.e.
final decision taken by the board of directors) of proposals is on or after
June 1, 2011.
3) Trigger Proceedings: The obligation to file notice at the CCI is based upon
certain trigger proceedings
A. Acquisition/acquisition of control: The CCI is required to inform within
30 days of the implementation of any contract or other document for
acquisition or acquiring of control.
The phrase ‗other document‘ means any ‗binding document‘ conveying an
agreement or decision to acquire control of shares, voting rights or assets.
In the context of hostile takeover, ‗other document‘ means any document
160
executed by the acquirer, which conveys a decision to acquire control of
shares or voting rights. Where no document has been executed but the
intention to acquire has been communicated to the Central Government or
State Government or any statutory authority, the date of communication
will be deemed to be the date of implementation of the ‗other document‘
for acquisition.
B. Merger and amalgamation: The CCI is required to be notified within 30
days of the approval of the proposal relating to merger or amalgamation by
the board of directors of the companies involved with such merger or
amalgamation. The approval of the board of directors has been elucidated
under Combination Regulations to refer to the final decision of the board
of directors.
C. PFI, FII, bank and venture capital fund: Any share subscription or
financing facility or any acquisition by a public financial institution,
foreign institutional investor, bank or venture capital fund, pursuant to any
covenant of a loan agreement or investment agreement are exempted from
merger control provisions under the Competition Act. However, the CCI is
required to be informed within 7 days of such share subscription or
financing facility or acquisition by a public financial institution, foreign
institutional investor, bank, or venture capital fund in Form III.
M & A in the banking sector would be kept outside the purview of the Act.
The Bill pertaining to Banking Amendment, which is pending before
Parliament, gives power to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to clear M & A in
the banking sector.
161
4) Requirement to Notify:
A. Acquisition/acquisition of control: The acquirer has the legal
responsibility to file the notice in Form I or Form II (see point-5 below), as
the case may be.
B. Hostile takeovers: Where the company is being acquired without its
approval, the acquirer has the liability to file the notice in Form I or Form
II, as the case may be.
C. Merger/amalgamation: Parties to the combination are enforced to jointly
file the notice in Form I or II, as the case may be.
D. Contract in Tranches: Parties to the combination may file a single notice
covering all the contracts where the eventual proposed outcome of a
business contract is achieved by way of a series of steps or smaller
individual contracts which are inter-connected or inter-dependent on each
other, one or more of which may amount to a combination.
5) Announcement to CCI: In cases where the prior announcement and approval
necessities under the combination provisions in accordance with sub-section
(2) of section 6 of the Act are attracted, an announcement in the standard form
must be filed with the CCI and the combination cannot be effected unless prior
approval is taken from the CCI.
A. Filing fee: The following table summarizes the filing fees:
Notice Fee
Form I 50,000
Form II 1,000,000
Form III No fee
162
6) CCI‟s Assessment:
A. Combination Stopwatch: The combination ‗stopwatch‘ starts ticking
from the date of receipt of notice by the CCI. The clock stops if the parties
to the combination are required to file any additional information or rectify
any information or carry out modification pursuant to the CCI‘s direction.
B. Timelines and fast track endeavour: Under the Combination
Regulations, the CCI has committed that it shall ―endeavour‖ to pass an
order or issue direction in accordance with sub-section (1) or sub-section
(7) of section 31 of the Act. The following table summarizes the timelines
for the CCI:
# of days from receipt of

Nature of the timeline
valid and complete notice
Stage 0 Combination stopwatch starts ticking 0
Stage I Formulation of prima facie opinion 30 days

―Endeavour‖ to pass a final order or
Stage II 180 days
issue direction
Final deadline beyond which
Stage III combination will be deemed to have 210 days
been approved
7) Contracts where notice need not be filed: Schedule I of the Combination
Regulations itemizes categories of combinations that are unlikely to cause an
appreciable adverse effect on competition and therefore need not ordinarily
require notification;
A. an acquisition of shares or voting rights solely as an investment or in the
ordinary course of business (in so far as the total shares or voting rights
held by the acquirer, directly or indirectly, do not exceed 15% and does
not lead to acquisition of control);
163
B. an acquisition of shares or voting rights, where the acquirer, prior to the
acquisition, has 50% or more of share or voting rights (except where the
contract results in change from joint control to sole control);
C. an acquisition of assets, not directly related to the business activity of the
acquirer or made solely as an investment or in the ordinary course of
business, not leading to the control of the enterprise (except where assets
being acquired represent substantial business operations in a particular
location or for a particular product or service of the enterprise)
D. an amended or renewed tender offer where a notice to CCI is filed by the
party making the offer, prior to such amendment or renewal of the offer;
E. an acquisition of stock-in-trade, raw materials, stores and spares in the
ordinary course of business;
F. an acquisition of shares or voting rights pursuant to a bonus issue or stock
splits or consolidation of face value of shares or subscription to rights issue
(not leading to acquisition of control);
G. any acquisition of shares or voting rights by a person acting as a securities
underwriter or a registered stock broker;
H. an acquisition of control or shares or voting rights or assets by one
enterprise of another within the same group;
I. an acquisition of ‗current assets in the ordinary course of business; and
(Explanation: ‗Current Assets‘ shall have the same meaning as attributed
to them in schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956)
J. A combination taking place entirely outside India with insignificant local
nexus and effects on markets in India.
However, the notification of such contracts will be compulsory where they are
likely to cause appreciable adverse effect on competition in India.

164
8) Self-governing Monitoring Agencies: Where the CCI is of the judgment that
the modifications proposed by it and accepted by the parties to the
combination require supervision, the CCI may appoint self-governing agencies
(i.e. accounting firm, management consultancy, law firm, professional
organization, or independent practitioners of repute) who/which have no
conflict of interest. These agencies shall submit their report to the CCI and
will be paid by the parties.
9) Compliance Report: Where the CCI is of the opinion that combination has or
is to be expected to have appreciable adverse effect on competition but such
adverse effect can be eradicated by appropriate modification to such
combination, it may propose appropriate modification to the combination to
the parties to the combination. The modifications shall be carried out by the
parties to the combination within the period specified by the CCI. The parties
to the combination shall, upon completion of modification, file compliance
report with the CCI.
10) Confidentiality: The CCI is obligated under the Competition Act to maintain
confidentiality. The parties to the combination requesting confidentiality are
required to clearly state the reasons, justifications and implications for the
business so that CCI may consider the request for confidentiality.
11) Cooperation with other agencies or statutory authorities: The CCI may
seek the opinion of any other agency or statutory authority in relation to a
combination.
165
Highlights of New regulations, titled The Securities and Exchange Board
of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations,
2011
The Indian regulatory environment has seen theatrical changes over the
past few years with meaningful amendments recommended to the direct and
indirect tax regimes as well as several corporate and securities laws. One of
these vital changes has been presented by SEBI- the revamp of the SEBI
(Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997. SEBI
has notified on 30 September 2011, the much anticipated New Takeover
Regulations i.e. SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers)
Regulations, 2011(―SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011‖) which will replace the
existing Takeover (SAST) Regulations, 1997. The new Regulations shall
come into force on the 30th day from the date of their publication in the
Official Gazette i.e. 22/10/ 2011, any acquisition, or sale of shares of Listed
Company shall be governed by provisions of SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011.
The new amendments announced by SEBI have fundamentally been made
on the basis of the report submitted by the Takeover Regulations Advisory
Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. C. Achuthan. The Committee was
established by SEBI to recommend enhancements in the Takeover Code. The
report had been formulated taking into account a plethora of vital factors
having a strong relevance on functioning of the Indian capital markets, which
have seen amendments since the Takeover Code was passed in 1997. These
comprise the rapidly increasing level of M&A activity, the rising refinement
of the takeovers Indian market, SEBI‘s decade-long regulatory proficiency in
capital markets, and several legal verdicts concerning to the Takeover Code.
166
On the basis of research and existing best procedures in other states
jurisdictions, the Committee has recommended several amendments to the
exiting Takeover (SAST) Regulation of 1997. The result of these
modifications has been to achieve the amended code considerably in line with
worldwide takeover regulations. The objectives of SAST are to protect interest
of the investors in security market for a listed company providing amongst
others, a chance for the public shareholders to exit where there is a significant
acquisition of equity shares or voting rights or control over a listed company,
consolidation of holdings by dominant shareholders and associated disclosures
and punishments for non-compliance, etc.
There are three major changes in the takeover code which are different
from the earlier takeover code. These changes are as follows:
A. Increase in Initial Threshold Limit from 15% to 25%.
The Initial Threshold limit provided for Open Offer obligations is
increased from 15% to 25% of the voting rights of the Target Company.
B. Increase in Offer Size from 20% to 26%.
The increase in open offer increased from 20% to 26%.
C. Abolition of Non-compete fees.
The scrapping the non-compete fee or control premium. Any amount paid to
the Promoters/Sellers whether as consideration, non-compete fee or control
premium or otherwise, shall be added in Offer Price and hence public
shareholders shall be given offer at the highest of such prices.
167
4.2. Comparison of Competition Act with MRTP
The differences between the old law (namely the MRTP Act, 1969)
and the new law (the Competition Act, 2002) are captured in the form of a
table 4.1 given below:
SR. No MRTP Act, 1969 Competition Act, 2002

Based on the pre-reforms state of Based on the post-reforms
1
affairs circumstances
2 Based on size as a factor Based on structure as a factor
Competition offences unstated or Competition offences unambiguous
3
not defined and defined
Complicated in arrangement and Straightforward in arrangement and
4
language language
14 per-se offences negating the 4 per-se offences and all the rest
5
principles of natural justice subjected to rule of reason.
6 Grimaces upon dominance Grimaces upon abuse of dominance
Registration of contracts No requirement of registration of
7
compulsory contracts
No combinations regulation Combinations regulated beyond a
8
specified threshold limit.
Competition Commission employed Competition Commission selected by
9
by the Government a Collegium (search committee)
Inadequate executive and financial Comparatively adequate executive
10 sovereignty for Monopolies and financial autonomy for
Commission Competition Commission
No competition advocacy Competition Commission has
11 responsibility for the Monopolies responsibility of competition
Commission advocacy
12 Reactive and rigid Proactive and flexible
Unfair trade practices covered Unfair trade practices omitted
13
(Consumer Act will deal with them)
168
The Act is hence a new wine in a new bottle, the extant MRTP Act
1969 has aged for more than three decades and has given birth to the
Competition Act in line with the changed and changing economic scenario in
India and rest of the world as also in time with the current economic thinking
comprising liberalization, privatization, and globalization (LPG).
4.3. Applicable Indian legal provisions in case of M & A
There is no specific process defined for carrying out M & A. It is
largely based on commercial considerations that companies keep in view of
the impact of taxes and its profitability. Presented hereunder is the summary of
legal provisions stated in SEBI Regulations, Takeover Code, Companies Act,
and Exchange Control Act.
A. Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1997 (SEBI) provisions for
Mergers and Amalgamation:
1) Takeover Code: SEBI is the nodal authority regulating companies that are
listed on stock exchanges in India. The Securities and Exchange Board of
India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997
(Takeover Code) confines and standardizes the acquisition of shares or
control in listed companies. Generally, According to regulation 10, if an
acquirer obtains 15% or more of the shares or voting rights of a listed
company, the acquirer would be required as per regulation 21, to make an
offer to the public to acquire at least 20% of the voting capital of the
company. However, Regulation 3 (1) (j) of the Takeover Code provides
that Regulations 10, 11 and 12 would not apply to any transfer or
acquisition of shares or voting rights pursuant to a proposal of arrangement
or reconstruction, including amalgamation or merger or demerger, under
169
any law or regulation, whether Indian or foreign. Therefore, if a merger is
authorized by the Court under the Merger Provisions, the above mentioned
provisions of the Takeover Code would not be relevant.
a) Disclosure necessities in the Takeover Code: Regulations 7 and 8 of
the Takeover Code remain applicable to a merger involving a listed
company.
b) Disclosures on certain acquisitions: Regulation 7 requires an acquirer
to make disclosures of the aggregate of his shareholding if the acquirer
obtains more than 5%, 10%, 14%, 54% or 74% of the shares/voting
rights of a company. Such disclosures must be made at each stage of
acquisition and are to be made to the company and to the stock
exchanges on which the shares of the company are listed. Regulation 7
further stipulates that an acquirer, who has acquired shares/voting
rights under Regulation 11 (Consolidation of holdings), must reveal
purchase or sale of 2% or more of the share capital of the company, to
the company and to the stock exchanges on which the shares of the
company are listed. The disclosures referred to above are to be made
within 2 days of the acknowledgment of intimation of allotment of
shares or the acquisition of shares or voting rights, as the case may be.
The company whose shares are acquired must also reveal to the stock
exchanges, the total number of shares held by the acquirers referred
above.
c) Repeated disclosures: Regulation 8 needs a person holding more than
15% of the shares or voting rights of a company to make annual
disclosures to the company (within 21 days from the financial year
ending March 31) in reverence of his/her holdings as on March 31 of
every year.
170
2) Listing Agreement:
The listing agreement entered into by a company for the purpose of
listing its shares with a stock exchange requires the following in the case
of a Court approved merger as per Clause 24 of the listing agreement of
the Bombay Stock exchange:
The scheme of merger/amalgamation/reconstruction must be filed with
the stock exchange at least 1 month earlier to filing with the Court.
The proposal cannot violate or override the provisions of any securities
law or stock exchange requirements.
The pre and post-merger shareholding must be revealed to the
shareholders.
B. SEBI 2009 provisions for acquisitions:
1) SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations,
2009:
On August 26, 2009, SEBI released the Securities and Exchange Board of
India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009
(‖ICDR Regulations‖) altering the earlier Securities and Exchange Board
of India (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000.
As per the ICDR Regulations, if the purchase of an Indian listed company
includes the question of new equity shares or securities convertible into
equity shares (―Specified Securities‖) by the target company to the
acquirer company, the provisions of Chapter VII (―Preferential Allotment
Regulations‖) incorporated in ICDR Regulations will be relevant (in
addition to the provisions of the Companies Act). Some of the applicable
and important provisions of Regulations are highlighted below.
171
a) Pricing of the issue: According to Regulation 76(1) of the ICDR
Regulations, where the equity shares of the target company have been
listed on a stock exchange for a period of 6 months or more prior to the
relevant date, the price of the equity shares released on a preferential
basis must be not less than the price that is the higher of,
i. the average of the weekly high and low of the closing prices of the
related equity shares quoted on the stock exchange during the 6
months foregoing the relevant date, or
ii. the average of the weekly high and low of the closing prices of the
related equity shares quoted on a stock exchange during the two
weeks foregoing the relevant date.
Explanation: ―Relevant Date‖ for preferential issues of equity shares, is
the date thirty days prior to the date on which the general meeting of
the shareholders is held to sanction the proposed issue of shares. In
case of preferential issue of convertible securities, either the date
mentioned aforesaid or the date thirty days prior to the date on which
the holders of the convertible securities become entitled to apply for
the equity shares.
b) Lock-in: Lock-in period for Specified Securities issued to the acquirer
company (who is not a promoter of the target company) are as follows;
SR. Lock-in
Securities
NO Duration
To acquirer Company (who is not a promoter of the target
1 1 Year
Company
2 Acquired holds prior to Preferential Allotment 6 Months
Preferential basis (permitted limit of 20% of the total
3 3 Years
capital)
172
Explanation: In general, promoters would be the persons in over-all
control of the company or who are named as promoters in the
prospectus of the company. The term promoter group has an even
wider connotation and would include immediate relatives of the
promoter. If the promoter is a company, it would include a subsidiary
or holding company of that company, any company in which the
promoter holds 10% or more of the equity capital or which holds
10% or more of the equity capital of the promoter, etc.
c) Currency of the resolution: The preferential allocation of specified
securities pursuant to a declaration of the shareholders approving such
issuance must be concluded within a period of 15 days from the date
on which the resolution is passed by the shareholders, failing which a
fresh authorization of the shareholders shall be essential. According to
Regulation 74 (1) if distribution of shares is pending on account of any
authorization required from a government authority then the allotment
must be completed within 15 days from the date of such authorization.
Exemption: According to Regulation 70 (1), the Preferential Allotment
Regulations (other than the lock-in provisions) do not apply in the case
of a preferential allotment of shares pursuant to merger/ amalgamation
approved by the Court under the Merger Provisions.
2. Takeover Code:
It an acquisition has taken place by process of issue of new shares, or
the acquisition of existing shares of a listed company, to or by an acquirer,
the regulations of the Takeover Code may be applicable. Under the
Takeover Code, an acquirer, along with Persons Acting in Concert (PAC):
173
a) According to Regulation 10, company cannot acquire shares or voting
rights which (taken together with shares or voting rights, if any, held
by him/her and by persons acting in concert) entitle such acquirer to
exercise 15% or more of the shares or voting rights in the target
company,
b) According to Regulation 11(1), who has acquired, 15% or more but
less than 55% of the shares or voting rights in the target company,
cannot acquire, either by himself/herself or through persons acting in
concert, additional shares or voting rights entitling him/her to exercise
more than 5% of the voting rights in the target company, in any
financial year ending on 31st March,
c) According to Regulation 11(2), who holds 55% or more but less than
75% of the shares or voting rights in the target company, cannot
acquire either by himself/herself or through persons acting in concert,
any additional shares or voting rights therein,
Explanation: There are 2 minimum threshold requirements of public
shareholding for continued listing of a listed company i.e. 25% and
10%. Where the target company is bound by the least 10% threshold
then the 75% mentioned in this regulation is substituted by 90%,
d) Who holds 75% of the shares or voting rights in the target company,
cannot acquire either by himself/herself or through persons acting in
concert, any additional shares or voting rights therein, except the
acquirer company makes a public announcement to acquire the shares
or voting rights of the target company in accordance to the provisions
of the Takeover Code.
174
The term ‗acquisition‘ would include both, direct acquisition in an
Indian listed company as well as indirect acquisition of an Indian listed
company by virtue of acquisition of companies, whether listed or unlisted,
whether in India or abroad. Further, the aforesaid limit of 5% acquisition is
computed aggregating all purchases, without netting of sales.
However, vide a modification in the year 2009, any person holding
55% or more (but less than 75%) shares is permitted to additional increase
his/her shareholding by not in excess of 5% in the target company without
making a public announcement. If the acquisition is by mode of open
market purchase in typical segment on the stock exchange but not through
negotiated deal/bulk deal/block deal/preferential allotment or the increase
in the shareholding or voting rights of the acquirer is pursuant to a
buyback of shares by the target company. Though there were precise
uncertainties as to the phase during which the 5% limit can be fatigued,
SEBI has elucidated that the 5% threshold shall be valid throughout the
survival of the target company without any restriction as to financial year
or otherwise. However, just like the acquisition of 5% up to 55%, the
acquisition is considered accumulating all acquisitions, not including
netting of sales.
Where an acquirer who (collectively with persons acting in concert
with him/her) possess 55% or more but less than 75% of the shares or
voting rights in a target firm, is zealous of combining his/her possession
while certifying that the public shareholding in the target company does
not drop under the minimum level allowed by the Listing Agreement,
he/she may do so only by making a public announcement in concurrence
with these regulations:
175
Allowed that in a situation where the target company had secured
listing of its shares by making a public offer of at least 10% of issue size of
equity capital to the public in terms of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 19
of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, or in provisions of
any relaxation granted from stringent enforcement of the said rule, this
sub-regulation shall apply as if for the words and figures ‗75%‘, the words
and figures ‗ 90%‘ were swapped.
Regulation 3(2) of the Takeover Code, acquisition of American
Depositary Receipts/Global Depositary Receipts (ADRs/GDRs) was
excused from open offer prerequisite under Chapter III of the Takeover
Code until the time of exchange into the underlying equity shares. It was
normally understood that this situation would stay unaffected even when
routine voting preparations are entered into between depositories and
ADR/GDR owners. However, pursuant to the SEBI media Release
No.300/2009 dated September 22, 2009, an amendment was brought in by
SEBI in the Takeover Code that such exception from open offer would be
accessible only as long as ADR / GDR owners remain inactive investors
without any kind of voting right with the depository banks on the
underlying equity shares.
Regulation 12 of the Takeover Code additionally requires that
irrespective of whether or not there has been any acquisition of equity
shares or voting rights in a company, no acquirer shall acquire control over
the target company, unless such individual makes a public announcement
to acquire equity shares and acquires such equity shares in accordance
with the Takeover Code. For the purpose of this Regulation, the word
‗acquisition‘ includes direct or indirect acquisition of control of the target
company by virtue of acquisition of companies, whether listed or unlisted
and whether in India or abroad.
176
However, the prerequisite under Regulation 12 does not relate to a
change in control which takes place pursuant to an exceptional decision
approved by the shareholders in a general meeting. Therefore, if 3/4ths of
shareholders attendance and voting at a meeting sanction the change of
control, then the prerequisite to make a public offer under Regulation 12
would not be initiated. For the purpose of this Regulation, the definition of
the term ‗control‘ in the Takeover Code is very extensive and includes
every probable technique of obtaining control. Regulation 2 (1) (c) defines
‗control‘ to include the right to employ majority of the directors, or to
control the management or policy decisions of the target company,
exercisable by a person or persons acting individually or in concert,
directly or indirectly, including by virtue of their shareholding or
management rights or shareholders agreements or voting agreements or in
any other manner
Pricing of the Offer: On the basis of the parameters laid down in the
Takeover Code the merchant banker will decide the price for the offer.
Regulation 20 (4) reveals that the offer price for equity shares of a
target company (whose equity shares are recurrently traded) will be the
highest of Bargained price (BP), Closing Price (CP) and Average Price
(AP);
1 BP > CP > AP = BP
2 CP > BP > AP = CP
3 AP > BP > CP = AP
Mode of Payment of Offer Price: The offer price may be paid in cash
or by issue or exchange or transfer of equity shares of the acquirer, if
an acquirer is a listed company, by issue or exchange or transfer of
protected instruments of the acquirer with a minimum ‗A‘ grade rating
from a credit rating bureau registered with the SEBI, or a combination
of all of the above.
177
Non-compete payments: Payments made to persons other than the
target company under any non-compete agreement exceeding 25% of
the offer price inwards at as per the necessities mentioned above, must
be added to the offer price.
Pricing for indirect acquisition or control: The offer price for

indirect acquisition or control shall be settled on with reference to the
date of the public announcement for the parent company and the date
of the public announcement for acquisition of equity shares of the
target company, whichever is higher, in accordance with necessities
set-out above.
According to Regulation 22 (18) the acquirer proposes to dispose of
the assets in the target company, excluding in the normal course of
business, then he/she must make such a disclosure in the public
announcement or in the letter of offer to the shareholders, in the
absence of which, the acquirer cannot dispose of or encumber the
assets of the target company for a period of 2 years from the date of
closure of the public offer.
Competitive Bidding/ Revision of offer/bid: The Takeover Code also

allows a person other than the acquirer (the first bidder) to make an
aggressive bid, by a public announcement, for the equity shares of the
target company. This offer must be made within 21 days from the date
of the public announcement of the first acquirer. The aggressive bid
must be for at least the number of equity shares held by the first
acquirer (along with PAC), plus the number of equity shares that the
first bidder has offer for. If the first acquirer wishes to revise his offer,
then he/she must make a new public announcement within 14 days
from the date of the public announcement by the second bidder. The
first acquirer (and any other bidder) is in fact, allowed to revise his/her
bid upwards (subject to certain time limitations) irrespective of
whether or not an aggressive offer is made.
178
The following acquisitions/transfers would be exempt from the
key provisions of the Takeover Code:
acquisition by a shareholder pursuant to a rights issue to the scope

of his/her right and subject to certain other limitations;
inter-se transfer of shares between;
 Qualifying Indian promoters and overseas business partners

who are shareholders,
 Qualifying promoters19, provided that the parties have been

possessing shares in the target company for a period of at least
3 years preceding to the intended acquisition,
 the acquirer and PAC, where the transfer of shares takes place 3
years after the date of winding up of the public offer made by
them under the Takeover Code and the transfer is at a price not
greater than 125% of the price settled on as per the Takeover
Code ;
acquisition of shares by an individual in swap of shares received

under a public offer made under the Takeover Code;
acquisition of shares by way of conduction on succession or

inheritance;
acquisition pursuant to a public issue;
transfer of shares from venture capital funds or overseas venture
capital investors registered with the SEBI. To promoters of a
venture capital undertaking or to a venture capital undertaking,
19
Qualifying promoter means any individual who is directly or indirectly in control of the company, or any
individual named as promoter in any document for offer of securities to the public or existing shareholders or in
the shareholding pattern disclosed by the company under the provisions of the Listing Agreement, whichever is
later.
179
pursuant to an agreement between such venture capital fund or
overseas venture capital shareholders, with such promoters or
venture capital undertaking;
acquisition of shares in the ordinary course of business by (I) banks
and public financial institutions as guarantors, (b) the International
Finance Corporation, International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, Asian Development Bank, Commonwealth
Development Corporation and such other international financial
institutions;
change in power by takeover of management of the borrower target
company by the secured creditor or by restoration of management
to the said target company by the said secured creditor in terms of
the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;
acquisition of shares in companies whose shares are not listed on
any stock exchange, unless it results in the acquisition
shares/voting rights/control of a company listed in India; and
acquisition of shares in terms of regulations concerning delisting of
securities framed by the SEBI.
3. Listing Agreement
According to clause 40A of listing agreement of BSE (Considered
listing agreement of BSE as it is biggest stock exchange of India) entered
into by a company with the stock exchange on which its shares are listed,
180
requires to uphold a public shareholding (Public Shareholding excludes
shares held by promote group and held by custodians against which
depositary receipts are issued abroad) of at least 25%, as the case may be,
on a continuous basis. If the public shareholding decreases under the
minimum level following to:
The transfer of shares (i) in compliance with directions of any
regulatory or statutory authority, or (ii) in compliance with the
Takeover Code, or
Reformation of capital by a scheme of arrangement, the stock
exchange may provide extra time of 1 year (extendable up-to to 2
years) to the company to fulfill with the minimum necessities.
In order to meet the terms with the minimum public shareholding
requirements, the company must either issue shares to the public or offer
shares of the promoters to the public. If a company doesn‘t succeed to
fulfill with the minimum requirements then shares may be delisted by the
stock exchange, and disciplinary action may also be taken against the
company.
4. Insider Trading Regulations.
Regulation 2 (ha) defines Price Sensitive Information (PSI) as ‗use of
PSI for personal advantage at the cost of market is called insider trading‘.
The following shall be deemed to be PSI according to regulation 2 (ha)
explanations:
Planned announcement of dividends (both interim and final);
Issue of securities or buy-back of securities;
181
Periodical financial results of the company;
Any major expansion plans or execution of new projects;
Amalgamation, mergers or takeovers;
Disposal of the whole or substantial part of the undertaking; and
Significant changes in policies, plans, or operations of the company.
Detailed information that is not publically known or information that
has not been published formally is considered as non-public information.
Under Regulation 2 (k), the term unpublished is defined as ―information which
is not published by the company or its agents and is not specific in nature‖.
Under the SEBI Insider Regulations, an insider on his/her behalf or on
behalf of any other person is forbidden from trading in securities of a company
listed on a stock exchange when he/she is in custody of any Unpublished PSI,
irrespective of whether or not such a trade was made for the intention of
making a gain or minimizing a loss. The existence of profit object is not
required while understanding the infringement of SEBI Insider Regulations.
On the other hand, in the case of Rakesh Agarwal v. SEBI, [2004] 49 SCL 351
(SAT- Mumbai) it was held that if an insider based on the Unpublished PSI
deals in securities for no benefit to him over others and it is not against the
interest of shareholders. Further, it was held that it is true that the regulation
does not expressly bring in mens rea as an element of insider trading. But that
does not mean that the motive need be unnoticed.
Regulation 3A interprets as ―No company shall deal in the securities of
another company or associate of that other company while in possession of
any unpublished price sensitive information.‖
182
Regulation 3 of the SEBI Insider Regulations forbids trading,
communication or counseling on affairs concerning to insider trading. It states
that ―No insider shall
1. either on his/her own behalf or on behalf of any other person, deal in
securities of a company listed on any stock exchange when in possession
of any unpublished price sensitive information; or
2. communicate counsel or procure directly or indirectly any unpublished
price sensitive information to any person who while in possession of such
unpublished price sensitive information shall not deal in securities:
Provided that nothing contained above shall be applicable to any
communication required in the ordinary course of business or profession
or employment or under any law.‖
It may be stated that the offence of insider trading or dealing,
constitutes of a set of essential components, which are as follows:
Participation of Insiders/Associated individuals;
Custody of unpublished PSI; and
Trading in securities listed on any stock exchange of India.
Disclosure Requirements: The SEBI Insider Regulations obliges all
directors, officers and substantial shareholders in a listed company to make
periodic disclosures of their shareholding as described in the SEBI Insider
Regulations.
183
Initial Disclosures: According to regulation 13 of SEBI Insider Regulations;
Any person possessing more than 5% shares or voting rights in any listed
company in India is required to disclose to the company in Schedule III,
Form A, the number of shares or voting rights held by such individual on
becoming such holder, within 2 functioning days of the receipt of
intimation of allotment of shares or the acquisition of shares or voting
rights, as the case may be.
Any individual, who is a director or officer of a listed company in India,
shall reveal to the company in Schedule III Form B, the number of shares
or voting rights held by such individual and their dependents within 2
functioning days of becoming a director or officer of the listed company.
Continual Disclosures:
Any individual possessing more than 5% shares or voting rights in any
listed company in India is required to disclose to the company within 2
functioning days from receipt of intimation of allotment of shares; or
acquisition or sale of shares or voting rights in Schedule III Form C, the
number of shares or voting rights held and change in shareholding or
voting rights, even if such change results in shareholding falling below
5%, if there has been any change in such holdings from the last disclosure
made under Regulation 13 (1) of SEBI Insider Regulations or under this
sub-regulation and such change exceeds 2% of total shareholding or voting
rights in the listed company.
184
Any person, who is a director or officer of a listed company, shall reveal to
the company in Schedule III Form D, the change in shareholding or voting
rights held by him/her and his/her dependents, if the change go beyond
5 lacs in value or 25,000 shares or 1% of total shareholding or voting
rights, whichever is lower. The disclosure shall be made within 2
functioning days from receipt of intimation of allotment of shares or
acquisition or sale of shares or voting rights.
C. Companies Act, 1956 for Mergers and Amalgamation:
A merger of two or more companies preside over by Sections 390 to
394 (Merger Provisions) of the Companies Act under Indian law. The Merger
Provisions are worded so broadly, that they would impart for and control all
kinds of commercial restructuring that a company may perhaps commence;
such as mergers, amalgamations, demergers, spin-off and every other
compromise, settlement, agreement or arrangement between a company and
its members and/or its creditors.
1. Procedure under the Merger Provisions: A merger fundamentally
comprises an agreement between the merging companies, their respective
shareholders and each of the companies proposing to merge with the
others must make an application to the Company Court i.e. the High Court
of each Indian State (the Court) having jurisdiction over such company for
organizing meetings of its respective shareholders and/or creditors. The
Court may then order a meeting of the creditors and shareholders of the
company. If the majority in number representing 3/4th in quantity of the
creditors and shareholders‘ in attendance and voting at such meeting reach
185
a decision to the merger and authorized by the Court, is binding on all
creditors and shareholders of the company. The Court will sanction a
merger or any other commercial restructuring only in circumstance when it
is satisfied that all material facts have been disclosed by the company. The
order of the Court sanctioning a merger does not take effect until a
certified copy of the same is reported by the company with the Registrar of
Companies.
Under Merger Provisions, Courts have full power to sanction any
modifications in the commercial structure of a company that may be
essential to have an effect on the corporate restructuring that is proposed,
for example, in regular circumstances a company must request the sanction
of the Court for carrying out a decrease of its share capital. On the other
hand, if a decrease of share capital forms is a part of the commercial
restructuring proposed by the company under the Merger Provisions, then
the Court has the authority to approve and sanction such decrease in share
capital and distinct proceedings for decrease of share capital would not be
essential.
2. Merger Provisions to foreign companies: Section 394 authorizes the
Court with certain authorities to smooth the progress of the reconstruction
or amalgamation of companies, i.e. in cases where an application is made
for sanctioning an arrangement that is:
I. for the reconstruction of any company or companies or the
amalgamation of any two or more companies; and
186
II. under the scheme the whole or part of the undertaking, property or
liabilities of any company concerned in the scheme (referred to as the
‗transferor company‘) is to be transferred to another company (referred
to as the transferee company‘).
Section 394 (4) (b) makes it clear that:
I. a ‗transferor company‘ would mean anybody corporate (A body
corporate in dudes a company incorporated outside India but excludes
a corporation sole, cooperative societies and any other body corporate
that may be notified by the Central Government), whether or not a
company registered under the Companies Act (i.e. an Indian company),
implying that a foreign company could also be a transferor, and
II. a ‗transferee company‘ would only mean an Indian company.
Therefore, the Merger Provisions acknowledge and authorize a merger
or reconstruction where a foreign company merges into an Indian company.
But the reverse is not authorized, and an Indian company cannot merge into a
foreign company.
D. Companies Act, 1956 for Acquisitions:
The Companies Act 1956 does not make a reference to the term
‗acquisition‘ intrinsically. On the contrary, the various techniques utilized for
managing an acquisition of a company involve fulfillment with certain key
provisions of the Companies Act 1956. The methods most frequently used are
a share acquisition or an asset purchase.

187
1. Acquisition of Shares. A share buying may take place by an acquisition
of all existing shares of the target company by the acquirer or by means of
subscription to new shares in the target company so as to acquire a
controlling investment in the target company.
 Transferability of shares: An Indian company may setup as a
private company or a public company. Membership of a private
company is limited to 50 members but not including employees and
former employees, and a transferability of its share is restricted by the
Companies Act. A restriction on transferability of shares is as a result
inherent to a private company, such restrictions being comprised in its
articles of association (the byelaws of the company), and by and large
in the form of a preventative right in support of the other
shareholders. The articles of association may lay down specific
procedures concerning to transfer of shares that must be adhered to in
order to influence a transfer of shares. While purchasing shares of a
private company, it is advisable for the acquirer to make sure that the
non-selling shareholders (if any) surrender any rights they may have
under the articles of association, and the course of action for transfer
under the articles of association is followed, for fear that any
shareholder of the company claim that the transfer is void or claim a
right to such shares.
 Transfer of shares: The transferor and transferee are necessary to
carry out a share transfer form, and lodge such form along with the
share certificates. The share transfer form is a prescribed form, which
188
must be stamped in accordance with law. On lodging the same with
the company, the company will have an effect on the transfer in its
records and sanction the share certificates in favor of the acquirer. It is
also necessary for the board of the company to pass a resolution
sanctioning the transfer of shares.
 Squeeze out provisions: Section 395 of the Companies Act states
that if a contract or scheme involving the transfer of shares or a class
of shares in a company (the ‗transferor company‘) to another
company (the ‗transferee company‘) is sanctioned by the owners of at
least 9/10ths in price of the shares whose transfer is concerned, the
transferee company may give notification to the rebelling
shareholders that it desires to acquire such shares, and the transferee
company is then, not only permitted but also assured to acquire such
shares. In computing 90% (in worth) of the shareholders, shares held
by the acquirer, nominees of the acquirer and subsidiaries of the
acquirer must be excluded.
The contract or scheme referred above should be permitted by the
shareholders of the transferee company within 4 months from the date
of the offer. The rebelling shareholders have the privilege to make an
application to the Court within 1 month from the date of the notice, if
they are victimized by the provisions of the offer. If no application is
made, or the application is dismissed within one month of issue of the
notice then the transferee company is entitled and bound to acquire
the shares of the rebelling shareholders.
189
If the transferee already holds more than 10% (in worth) of the
shares (being of the same class as those that are being acquired) of the
transferor, then the following stipulations must also be met:
 The transferee offers the same conditions to all holders of the
shares of that class whose transfer is entailed; and
 The shareholders holding 90% (in worth) who have approved the
scheme of acquisition should also be not less than 3/4ths in
number of the holders of those shares (not including the acquirer).
Consequently, if an acquirer already possesses 50% of the
shares of the target company, it would need the sanction of 90% (in
worth) of the other shareholders of the target company to invoke the
provisions of this Section, i.e. the consent of holders of 45% of the
shares of the target company. If this consent is acknowledged, the
acquirer would then be permitted to acquire the balance 5% of the
shares of the target company. As the acquirer in such a case possesses
more than 10% of the share capital, then the shareholders holding
45% of the share capital must also constitute at least 3/4ths (in
number) of the shareholders holding the balance 50%. Thus, if one
shareholder possesses 45% and sanctions the transfer and remaining
5% is held by five shareholders who do not sanction the transfer then
the acquirer would not be able to invoke the provisions of Section
395.
If the rebelling shareholders do not submit an application to the
Court, or the Court does not provide any relief to the rebelling
shareholders on their application, then the acquirer must send a copy
of the notice (distributed to the rebelling shareholders) along with an
190
instrument of transfer, performed on behalf of the rebelling
shareholder by any individual appointed by the acquirer, to the target
company along with the consideration billed. The instrument of
transfer must also be performed by the transferee on its own behalf.
The transferor would then be obliged to record and register the
transfer in favour of the transferee. The consideration received by the
transferor must be credited in a distinct bank account and held in trust
for the rebelling shareholders. This course of action is subject to the
circumstances and provisions set forth in the Companies Act. The
advantage of these provisions is that a complete takeover could be
affected without resort to tedious court procedures.
Section 395 requires that the ―transferor company‖ (the target)
can be any body corporate whether or not incorporated under Indian
law. Therefore the target can also be a foreign company. However, a
‗transferee company‘ (the acquirer), must be an Indian company.
 New share issuance: The acquisition of a public company concerns
the issue of new shares to the acquirer then it would be essential for
the shareholders of the company to pass a special resolution under the
provisions of Section 81(1A) of the Companies Act. A special
resolution is one that is approved by at least 3/4ths of the shareholders
in attendance and voting at a general meeting is mandatory for the
approval of acquisition. A private company is not mandatory to pass a
special resolution for the issue of new shares, and a simple resolution
by the board of directors should be sufficient.
191
The issue of new shares by an unlisted public company to an
acquirer must also act in accordance with the Unlisted Public
Companies (Preferential Allotment) Rules, 2003. Some of the
influential features of these rules are as follows:
Equity shares, fully convertible debentures, partly convertible
debentures or any other financial instruments convertible into
equity are governed by these rules.
The issue of new shares must be sanctioned by the articles of
association of the company and approved by a special resolution
passed by shareholders in a general meeting, permitting the board
of directors of the company to issue the new shares. The
authenticity of the shareholders‘ resolution is 12 months,
necessitating that if new shares are not issued within 12 months of
the resolution, the resolution will come to an end, and a fresh
resolution will be required.
The descriptive statement to the notice for the general meeting
should contain key disclosures concerning the object of the new
issue, pricing of shares including the relevant date for calculation
of the price, shareholding pattern, change of control if any, and
whether the promoters/directors/key management persons propose
to acquire shares as part of such issuance.
 Limits on investment: Section 372A of the Companies Act
communicates certain limits on inter-corporate loans and investments.
An acquirer may acquire by way of subscription, purchase or
otherwise, the shares of any other body corporate up-to 60% of the
192
acquirers paid up share capital and free reserves, or 100 % of its free
reserves, whichever is more. However, the acquirer is allowed to
acquire shares beyond such limits, if it is sanctioned by its
shareholders vide a special resolution approved in a general meeting.
It may be noted that the limitations under Section 372A are not
relevant to private companies. Further, Section 372A would not be
relevant to an acquirer which is a foreign company.
E. Exchange Control
1. Foreign Direct Investment:
India‘s action concerning exchange control is sluggish, conscious, and
monitored with awareness towards full capital account convertibility.
However, substantial controls have been detached and allowed foreign
companies to acquire Indian companies across the sectors, subject to strict
pricing and reporting requirements imposed by the central bank, the Reserve
Bank of India. Investments in, and acquisitions (complete or partial) of Indian
companies by foreign companies are controlled by the terms of the Foreign
Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident
outside India) Regulations, 2000 (the FDI Regulations) and the provisions of
the Industrial Policy and Procedures published by the Secretariat for Industrial
Assistance (SIA) in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of
India.
Automatic Route: Schedule 1 of the FDI Regulations encloses the Foreign
Direct Investment Scheme (FDI), which allows a Non-Resident of India
(NRI) to acquire equity shares or compulsorily convertible preference
shares/debentures in an Indian company equal to the investment limits for
each sector provided in Annexure B to the FDI Scheme. According to
193
Annexure B, sectoral cap on Investments by persons residents outside
India are as follows;
Sr. No Sector Investment Cap

1 Telecommunications 49%
Telecommunications (Manufacturing activities) 100%
2 Housing and Real Estate 100%
3 Coal and Lignite (Public Sector Undertakings (PSU) 49%
Coal and Lignite (other than PSUs) 50%
4 Drugs & Pharmaceuticals 74%
5 Hotel & Tourism 51%
6 Mining (diamonds and precious stones) 74%
Mining (Gold, Silver and Minerals) 100%
7 Advertising 74%
8 Films 100%
Any other sector/activity (other than those included
9 100%
in Annexure A)
Investment under the FDI Scheme is normally referred to as an
investment under the ‗automatic route‘ as no authorizations or consents
are required. Part-A of Annexure-A to the FDI Scheme lists the events for
which general permission is not available for a NRI, which include events
such as defense, postal services, broadcasting, print media, courier
services etc. Investment in these sectors requires the prior permission of
the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) of the Government of
India, which is approved on an instance-to-instance basis. Part-B of
Annexure-A lists the sectors in which foreign direct investment is
prohibited i.e., retail trading, atomic energy, lottery business, gambling
and betting, housing, and real estate (permitted subject to compliance
with certain conditions). All investments beyond 600 crores need a prior
approval.
194
Indirect Foreign Investment: If an Indian company is ―possessed‖ or
―controlled‖ by ―non-resident legal entities‖, then the complete
investment by the investing company into the business downstream
Indian investee company would be contemplated as indirect foreign
investment. Provided that, as an exception, the indirect foreign investment
in completely owned subsidiaries of operating-cum-investing companies
will be limited to the foreign investment in the operating-cum-investing
company. The exception was made since the downstream investment of a
100% owned subsidiary of the holding company is similar to investment
made by the holding company and the downstream investment should be
a mirror image of the holding company.
Portfolio Investment Scheme: FIIs enrolled with the SEBI and NRIs are
allowed to invest in listed securities through the respective stock
exchange.
Downstream Investment: Foreign investment, whether direct or indirect,
into a company that is not equipped shall need prior authorization of the
Government of India / FIPB.
Acquisition of rights shares/bonus shares: NRI may subscribe to shares
issued on a rights basis by an Indian listed company provided that the bid
of shares doesn‘t result in increase in the percentage of foreign equity
authorized for such company. The price at which the shares are offered to
NRI is not less than the price offered to the resident shareholders. NRI
may also acquire bonus shares under the FDI Regulations. The rights or
bonus shares will however be subject to the same situations as those
pertinent to the original shares.
195
Foreign venture capital investors (FVCI): An FVCI listed with the
SEBI and can invest in Indian venture capital endeavors, venture capital
funds or in schemes put forwarded by venture capital funds under the
terms of Schedule 6 of the FDI Regulations. One of the vital paybacks of
investing as an FVCI is that an FVCI is not essential to stick to the pricing
necessities that are otherwise required to be met by a foreign investor
under the automatic route when purchasing to shares or when selling such
shares.
Pricing under the automatic route: The price of shares delivered to
non-residents can‘t be less than the fair value of the shares as decided by
the procedure released by the erstwhile Controller of Capital Issues, or if
the Indian company is listed with stock exchange then the price can‘t be
less than the price calculated in accordance with the SEBI procedures.
Issue of Shares under merger/ amalgamation / demerger: A transferee
company may issue shares to the shareholders of a transferor company
under a scheme of merger or amalgamation sanctioned by an Indian court,
provided that the industrial limits mentioned above are not exceeded.
Foreign Technology Collaborations: Indian companies are allowed
foreign technology collaboration under the automatic route subject to
obedience without any limits. Under the Research and Development Cess
Act 1986, an Indian company importing any technology from outside
India then required paying a research and development cess of about 5%
under the Research and Development Cess Act, 1986.
196
Existing joint ventures: In the past, the automatic route for foreign direct
investment or technology collaboration was not accessible to foreign
investors who had any prior joint venture or technology transfer or trade-
mark agreement in the same or associated domain in India. The
responsibility was on the foreign investor or technology providers to
demonstrate to the fulfillment of FIPB or Project Approval Board that the
new investment would not in any way endanger the benefits of the
existing joint venture or technology/trade-mark partner. On the other hand
in 2005, the Government of India issued Press Note 1 of 2005 and
amended this prerequisite as follows:
I. If the foreign investor has an existing joint venture or technology
transfer/trademark agreement in the ‗same‘ field (4 digit National
Industrial Classification Code), then the prior sanction of the
government is essential. The Government of India went on to clarify
vide Press Note 3 of 2005, that joint ventures or technology
transfer/trademark agreements existing on the date of issue of Press
Note 1 of 2005, i.e. January 12, 2005, only, would be considered as
existing joint ventures and technology transfer/trademark agreements
for the determinations of Press Note 1 (2005 Series), and not any
consequent joint ventures or technology transfer/trademark
agreements;
II. Even where the foreign investor has a joint venture or technology
transfer/ trademark agreement in the ‗same‘ field, prior permission of
the Government of India will not be required in the following cases:
197
Investments by venture capital funds registered with the SEBI; or
Where in the existing joint-venture investment by either of the

contributors is less than 3%; or
Where the existing venture or collaboration is dead or sick.
Foreign investments in the Information Technology (IT) sector,

investments by multinational financial institutions and in the mining
sector for same area or mineral were, and continue to be exempted
from the necessities pertaining to existing joint ventures referenced
above.
2. Overseas Direct Investment:
An Indian company that desires to acquire or invest in an overseas

company outside India must comply with the Foreign Exchange Management
(Transfer or Issue of any Foreign Security) Regulations, 2004 (ODI
Regulations).
The ODI Regulations are an expansion of the procedure of

liberalization started by the Government of India in the late 1990s. The
regulations have detailed provisions governing investments made by an Indian
company in an overseas company by contribution of ‗general authorization‘ to
make a ‗direct investment outside India‘ in legitimate business activities,
subject to acquiescence with the regulations. The phrase ‗direct investment
outside India‘ has been defined as ‗investment by tactic of contribution to the
capital or members to the Memorandum of Association (MOA) of a foreign
body or by way of purchase of existing shares of a foreign body either by
market buy or private placement or through respective stock exchange, but
does not comprise portfolio investment‘. An Indian company is not allowed to
make any direct investment in a foreign company connected in real estate or
banking business without the prior approval of the RBI.
198
The Indian individual may choose to fund the aforesaid investment out
of balances held in the Exchange Earners‘ Foreign Currency (EEFC) byway of
drawing funds from an authorized dealer subject to certain limits, or using the
proceeds of an ADR/GDR issue. There are numerous ways accessible to an
Indian company which proposes to invest in a foreign company.
4.5. M & A and Consumer Protection:
For Indian economy, long concealed by the license and domination
regime, this is a completely new experience and has been escorted with a
common sense of patriotic jubilation. The air over corporate India is thick with
the heady scent of M & A. Certainly a lot of these mergers present much for
the country to be proud of.
Competition law is customarily conceived as directive of the
marketplace to make sure confidential conduct does not repress free trade and
competition. It has as its objective of safeguarding competition in marketplace.
Competition ensures consumers‘ welfare. Consumer protection regulation
represents a body of law designed to safeguard consumers‘ interest at the level
of the individual transaction. The two are essentially different. The consumer
courts deal with individual consumer cases, and their total methodology and
systems are different. Competition Act deals with competition in the market
that affects consumers. So in a way it is like a class action rather than an
individual action or grievance.
From the consumers‘ point of view, on the whole, a dissimilar issue
arises and that is how good the merger is for them and for the economy. At
this juncture the competition authorities and the competition law come into
picture. The majority M & A do not give mount to a competition concern and
199
competition authorities perceive no grounds for interfering with them. The
apprehension frequently arises in the case of horizontal or vertical mergers
between competitors functioning in the same market, i.e. trading with same
goods and services in the same region. The Indian Competition Act, 2002 also
has prerequisites for regulating mergers – these are known as ‗combinations‘
section 6 which include mergers and amalgamations, acquisition and
acquisition of domination.
On the other hand, the merger rule is moderate. There is a high upper-
limit below which mergers are outside the authority of the Competition
Commission. The threshold is 1,000 crores of assets and 3,000 crores of
turnovers. In respect to group of companies, the upper-limit is 4,000 crores of
assets or 12,000 crores of turnovers. In the case of enterprises operating in or
outside India, the corresponding thresholds are $500 million of assets or
$ 1500 million of turnover and for groups $2 billion of assets or $ 6 billion of
turnover. Further, pre-notification to the Competition Commission before the
merger is not mandatory, but optional. If pre-notification is given, the
Commission must dispose of the matter within 90 working days from a
particular stage, or else the merger is deemed approved.
In inquiring into a merger, the Competition Commission has to see
whether a merger has caused or is likely to cause an ―appreciable adverse
effect on competition‖ (AAEC) and there is a ‗rule of reason‘ approach to the
inquiry. The Act provides a large number of factors which the Commission
must take into account in the inquiry. Most importantly, these include the
market share of the enterprises, barriers to entry, level of concentration in the
market, likelihood of increase in prices or profit margins, removal of an
200
important competitor, and so on. The Commission must also consider the
gains from the merger such as the possibility of failing business, nature, and
extent of innovation, and Essays on contribution to the economic
development. Enterprises may claim efficiency gains or that one of the
enterprise was a sick or dying business and would have exited the market
anyway. Thus, the Commission must carefully weigh the positive and the
negative consequences of the merger. This approach is not much different
from other competition regimes such as the European Union and USA.
At the start of the inquiry, the Commission must determine the
‗relevant market‘ in which the AAEC is to be assessed. The relevant market
comprises of the ―relevant product market‖ and the ―relevant geographic
market‖. The relevant product market broadly comprises of those products or
services which are regarded by the consumer as interchangeable or
substitutable. For example, a question can arise whether aerated drinks and
fruit drinks are in the same product market or not. The factors to be considered
by the Commission include physical characteristics or end-use, price,
consumer preference and so on. A low priced Maruti 800 may not be in the
same product market as a luxury BMW. The relevant geographic market
comprises the area in which the conditions of competition for supply or
demand are homogenous. For example, in the case of cement, a relatively
heavy but low-value product, a question can arise whether the relevant market
is the whole country or only a local area or region. The relevant geographic
market can be influenced by inter-state restrictions. The factors for
determining the relevant product and geographic markets are specified in the
201
Act. The determination of the relevant market calls for economic analysis and
use of certain economic tools. If the Commission finds, which going by
historical experiences could be in a small proportion of cases, that the merger
is likely to have AAEC, the Commission may refuse approval or may approve
it with certain modifications. For example, in the case of the P&G-Gillette
merger, the authorities stipulated that a certain part of the business must be
divested. The process of inquiry set out in the Act provides full opportunity to
the merging enterprises to defend the merger and also to consider any
modifications proposed by the Commission. It also provides an open
opportunity to opposing parties to present their position to the Commission.
4.6. Conclusion:
M & A are indicators of a dynamic and growing free market economy.
The officially permitted structure for such commercial restructuring must be
painless, facilitative, encouraging and should not be held up in bureaucratic
and authoritarian hurdles. The principal obstruction in the way of completing a
combination remains the often long and exhausting procedure required for the
sanction of a scheme of arrangement by court.
In the foregoing discussion, we have stated the position of law as it has
evolved over a period of time specifically the Competition law. On the other
hand, an Abuse of Dominance is mandatorily prohibited under the law. As a
result, every acquirer (not the target) has to be meeting the requirements of
Competition Law even post combination and has to refrain so enduringly if it
needs to remain in healthy business practice.
202
The Commission needs to swing into action carrying out significant
proficiency building to put into practice the extra territorial authority that is
embodied in the Competition Act, 2002. As India Incorporate moves at a high-
speed with the worldwide financial systems, there is a need to make sure that
global collaboration is painless by tackling cross border challenges. However,
the Act demonstrates the ‗effects‘ doctrine.
Practical experience has shown that the majority of combinations
notified are cleared quite quickly. The Act, itself lays down stringent time
lines - the Commission must take a view within 90 working days from the day
it has obtained complete information failing which the combination is deemed
to have been approved20. Further, the Commission may initiate suo-motu
enquiry into combination only within a period of one year from the day the
combination has taken effect21. These provisions adequately dispel any
apprehension of inordinate delay or unbridled scrutiny into combinations.
Further global experience suggests that hardly four per cent of the all notified
combinations are taken up for a detailed scrutiny by the competition
authorities, of which 50% are approved, and a further 25% are approved with
modifications.
Indian companies have often surpassed their foreign counterparts in
corporate restructuring both within and beyond the national frontiers. To sum
up, as George Bernard Shaw is reputed to have said ―We are made wise not by
the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future‖.
20
Competition Act, 2002, s. 31(11)
21
Competition Act, 2002, s. 20(1), this is on the other hand a great incentive for parties to notify their intended
merger prior to going ahead with the agreement
203
References
Chidambaram, P. (2003), ―Law and Commerce: And the Twain shall Meet‖,
The Sunday Express, 26th October 2003, Ahmedabad, Accessed on 28th May,
2011.
Dasgupta, N. (2004), Corporate Governance Structure, Mergers and
Takeovers in India in the Post-Liberalization Regime—Proposals and
Policies, Calcutta: Bethune College. http://www.utiicm.com/cmc/PDFs/2000/
nandita_dasgupta.pdf accessed on 10th June 2010.
GOI (1969),―Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act‖, Delhi:
Government of India Press.
Raghavan, S. V. S. (2000), Report of the High Level Committee on
Competition Policy.
Viswanathan, T. (2003), ―Law and Practice of Competition Act, 2002‖, New
Delhi: Bharat Law House.
WEBSITE:
on2nd June 2011
Bansal Ajit, Kumar. (2011) ―Mergers & Acquisitions: Some Key Issues‖,
http://www.indianmba.com/Faculty_Column/FC1173/fc1173.html, Accessed
on 14 June 2011.
204
Briefing paper, Cuts Center for International Trade, Economics and
Environment, NO; 5/2000, http://www.cuts-international.org/5-2000.pdf
Accessed on 1/05/2010.
CCI website (2005), ―Brief Note on the provisions of The Competition Act,
2002 and the jurisdiction, Powers and Duties of the Competition Commission
of India‖, http://www.competition-commission-india.nic.in/ Accessed on
October 20, 2011.
www.cci.gov.in
http://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_FemaNotifications.aspx?Id=174#ann_b Accessed
on 30th May 2012.
on 25th May 2012.
Indian Express (2011), ―India growth to beat China in 2012: World Bank‖,
14th January, New Delhi http://www.indianexpress.com/news/indian-growth-
to-beat-china-in-2012-wb/737497/ accessed on 5th May 2011.
Poddar, T. (2005) ―Alteration required in Indian Mergers and Acquisitions (M
& As) laws‖ http://www.indlaw.com/, date 14th Sep 2005.
www.sebi.gov.in
205
CHAPTER –5
WEALTH EFFECT OF MERGERS AND
ACQUISITIONS: AN EVENT STUDY
In the literature, there is controversy with regards to the gains created
by Mergers and Acquisitions (M & A) activity. This chapter seeks to unravel
the mystery that M & A activities do really create wealth or takeover and
acquisitions are propelled by the managerial hubris of bidder companies.
Section 2 reviews literature relating to conceivable explanations for observed
stock market reactions to acquisition announcements. Section 3 describes the
research methodology. Section 4 proposes a linear regression model, which
was used for predicting abnormal returns. Section 5 presents empirical results
and Section 6 outlines the conclusion.
5.1. Introduction:
The considerable literature on M & A has presented a number of
conceivable explanations for the snooty visibility of this commercial
phenomenon since the 1980s. Jensen (1986, 1988) has opined that M & A are
an outcome of a collapse in the in-house governance frameworks of
corporations. This view finds support in the research of Kini, Kracaw and
Mian (2004) who argue that M & A is a last resort that is observed when
internal governance mechanisms of the companies break down and the market
is the only source of discipline for the managers (Shleifer and Vishny, 1990).
Chairman, Chief executive officer (CEO) or Senior Management in large
corporations utilize complimentary cash flow produced by the more prolific
and lucrative departments to subsidize less productive department, rather than
206
returning the cash to the shareholders, and this guides shareholder action
manifested by M & A. On the other hand, there is view that M & A is a
mechanism whereby efficiency-seeking companies spin off unrelated lines of
business and acquire businesses that enhance efficiency through vertical or
horizontal mergers between companies.
Announcements of M & A seemingly influence a target company‘s
stock price, as induced response in the stock market cause shareholders to
revise predictions about the company‘s future profitability (Panayides and
Gong, 2002). According to the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH), ―prices
reflect all publicly available information on an underlying asset‖ (Fama,
1970). An event study is a statistical technique used to measure the impact of a
corporate event, such as acquisition declarations, earnings announcements,
and stock splits. Abnormal returns are defined as the difference between actual
and predicted returns surrounding a corporate event. Cumulative abnormal
returns are the sum of abnormal returns in a given time period. Brown and
Warner (1980), Davidson, Dutia and Cheng (1989) Mitchell, Pulvino and
Stafford (2002) have utilized a similar event study approach to examine stock
market reactions to acquisition announcements. Event studies of M & A
announcements specify that there can be significant loss of wealth of
shareholders of predator companies both in the short run and in the long run
(Asquith, 1983; Agarwal, Jaffe and Mandelker, 1992). Information released by
an acquisition announcement influence all companies or specific companies in
the industry. Industry mergers are known to crop up in waves [Mitchell and
Mulherin (1996) and Harford (2005)]. If consequent bidding by a competitor
is anticipated at the time of a former bid, the afterward announcement period
returns for that competitor will not correctly reveal the wealth effect of its own
bidding activity.
207
Using Canadian M & A data, Ben-Amar and Andre (2006) discovered
that, abnormal returns to the stocks of the acquiring companies were mostly
positive during the 1998-2002 periods. They concluded that this was a
manifestation of the confidence that regulators had an attitude to look after the
interest of the minority shareholders. The result in other contexts has not been
as favorable for companies with concentrated shareholding. Bae, Kang and
Kim (2002) propound that in South Korea share value of acquiring companies
decline subsequent to M & A, resulting in a loss for the minority shareholders.
But the insiders who manage these companies gain because of a subsequent
increase in the value of the associated group companies.
The stock market and financial performance of Indian companies that
belong to business groups in the beginning decrease with group diversification
but get better once the degree of diversification goes beyond a certain
threshold (Khanna and Palepu, 2000). They concluded that in competent
markets like India business groups imitate the functions of institutions that are
otherwise missing. This analysis is supported by research that argues that
group association in countries with underdeveloped capital markets and low
levels of creditor fortification, business group association offers greater access
to external funds (Ghatak and Kali, 2001; Lesnik, van der Molen and
Gangopadhyay, 2003). On the other hand, Chacar and Vissa (2005) have
suggested that Indian companies with group association have greater
persistence of poor execution than those that are not part of such
organizational structure. They concluded that market based governance
structures operate superior in developing market circumstances than internal
or ―allocative‖ governance structures.
208
5.2. Review of Literature:
Many financial researches illustrate that strategic relatedness is not an
adequate circumstance for the acquirer company to earn abnormal returns
(Lubatkin, 1987; Singh and Montgomery, 1987; Barney, 1988). The Synergy22
Trap Hypothesis posits that immediately before and after an acquisition
announcement, the acquiring firm‘s stock price is negatively affected and the
target company‘s stock price is positively affected and gives rise to abnormal
returns. In numerous cases, even when the merger generates value due to a
good resource fit between the target and acquirer, the market distributes the
full synergistic profits to the target shareholders rather than to the acquirer
shareholders. Value formation does not guarantee value capture by the
acquirer when the rivalry among potential acquirers drives up the target worth
until the Net Present Value (NPV) for the successful bidder is close to zero.
As a consequence, acquirers can earn abnormal returns only when the market
for corporate control is defectively competitive. Barney (1988) stated
circumstances that would be favourable to market breakdowns in the market
for corporate control.
One of these circumstances is when there is an exceptional and
irreplaceable precious synergy between an acquirer and a target. In this case,
the target company is more precious to one acquirer than to the other
acquirers, and the highest acquirer can anticipate earning part of the
synergistic profits. In contrast, if the target company is equally precious to at
least two acquirers, the competitive offering procedure will disclose and all the
22
Synergy is defined as the increase in the merging companies‘ competitive dilutions and ensuing cash
flows beyond which the two companies are projected to carry out independently (Seth, 1990; Sirower,
1997).
209
synergistic profits accrue to the target company. The presence of an inimitable
fit depends on the individual resource contribution of each associate. When the
synergistic profits stem from the target‘s resources, the resources are likely to
be equally estimated by numerous acquirers. In contrast, when the synergistic
profits arise from resources which are explicit to one acquirer, the target
company is unlikely to be equally estimated by numerous acquirers. As
Barney (1988) stated, ‗other acquiring companies will be unable to duplicate
the uniquely valuable combined cash flow of one acquirer and targets when
the relatedness between this acquirer and targets stems from some non-
imitable assets or skills controlled by this acquiring company‘.
In research on restructuring-driven vs. synergistic takeovers, Chatterjee
(1992) studied on similar lines and concluded that in restructuring driven
takeovers multiple companies are likely to restructure the target company. In
this case, the source of value resides with the target company. As an outcome,
the value of the target company is on offer until abnormal returns taper off. In
the case of synergistic acquisitions, however, the synergistic profits are likely
to be separated between the acquirer and the target companies. The eventual
distribution of profits between the acquirer and the target depends on their
individual bargaining power—i.e., on their respective resource contribution
(Chatterjee, 1986).
A. The Impact of M & A Announcements on Stock Trading Volumes
There have been number of studies about the effects of M & A
announcements on trading volumes. Dodd and Ruback (1977) analyzed
abnormal returns about the time of a takeover announcement and
discovered that both the target and bidding companies‘ shareholders
210
earned positive and substantial gains from a lucrative takeover. Langetieg
(1978) measured shareholder gains from the mergers and an insignificant
post-merger excess returns. Asquith and Kim (1982) studied returns to
stockholders of target companies around the date of the initial
announcement or completion of a merger. They concluded that the
stockholders of target companies gained, while those of bidding companies
did not. Jensen and Ruback (1983) evaluated 13 studies on the abnormal
returns around takeover announcements. They concluded that the average
surplus returns to target companies‘ stockholders are of 30% and 20% for
the successful M & A respectively, while bidding companies‘ stockholders
gained an average of 4% at the time of tender offers but no abnormal
return around the merger. Frank et al. (1991), however, found no evidence
to prop up significant abnormal returns of acquiring companies over a
three-year period after the bid date. Agrawal et al. (1992) concluded that
offering companies lost from the acquisitions over several years but
Ruback (1977), Kummer and Hoffmeister (1978) and Dodd (1980)
suggested that offering companies gained from the acquisitions.
Travlos and Papaioannou (1991) investigated the results of method of
payment on offering companies‘ stock return at the initial announcement
of takeover offers. They concluded that the abnormal return of offering
companies on the announcement day were -1.3% for stock exchange and -
0.8% for cash offers. Suk and Sung (1997) looked at the impact of method
of payment, form of acquisition and type of offer on target companies‘
abnormal returns around the takeover announcement. They found that
there was no divergence in premiums between stock offers and cash offers.
211
Chang (1998) examined bidder returns at the announcement of a takeover
proposal when target companies were privately held. He also concluded
that bidders showed no abnormal return in cash offers but a positive
abnormal return in stock offers. The supervising actions and information
asymmetries23 were grounds for a positive wealth effect. Knapp (2006)
concluded that post-merger abnormal return of bank connected companies
was considerably larger as evaluated with the industry mean in the first 5
years after a merger. Al-Sharkas et al (2008) also showed that mergers
could boost the cost and profit efficiencies of banks and presented an
economic rationale for future mergers in the banking industry.
B. Bidder Returns
Initial research addressing expectation in bidding activities highlights
on programme offers and reports mixed results. Programme offers are
acquisition agendas announced by a particular company. Schipper and
Thompson (1983), Malatesta and Thompson (1985), and Loderer and
Martin (1990) recommended that further offers of a company are projected
at the time their acquisition agenda is announced. Alternatively, Asquith,
Bruner, and Mullins (1983) discovered that bidding companies receive
significantly positive returns for each of their first four offers. Fuller,
Netter, and Stegemoller (2002) concluded that during the 1990‘s the order
of the acquisitions didn‘t influence excess returns to frequent bidders.
Similarly, Conn, Cosh, Guest, and Hughes (2004) found that returns from
U.K. acquirers announcing multiple offers are alike to those from single
23
Information asymmetry is caused when one person to a transaction has superior information than
other party. It leads to adverse selection and immoral behavior (Myers, 1984)
212
acquirers. In contrast, Billett and Qian (2008) described that acquirers of
second and higher order deals know-how significantly more negative
returns and ascribe this consequence to managerial audaciousness. Song
and Walkling (2000) noticed that competitors of target companies
experience contemporaneous positive abnormal returns to the extent that
they are likely to be targeted themselves.
Acquisition movement within an industry is connected with positive
abnormal returns to competitors of the targeted company. Eckbo (1983,
1985) and Eckbo and Wier (1985) concluded that horizontal competitors
of target companies earned considerably positive abnormal returns of
0.76%, (Z=2.59), over the seven day period around the offer date. Stillman
(1983) didn‘t combine competitor companies into a single portfolio but
instead reports distinct results for the competitors of 11 divergent mergers.
The abnormal return to competitors is positive in 9 of the 11 cases
investigated. Mitchell and Mulherin (1996) reported abnormal returns of
0.5% to competitors during the month of announcement. The source of
these positive competitor returns was unresolved. Amplified effortlessness
of collusion could enlighten the positive returns, but Eckbo (1983, 1985,
and 1992), Eckbo and Wier (1985), and Stillman (1983) rejected this
hypothesis. Alternative explanations include the signal of positive
information concerning the value of an industry or increased synergies
between competitors and consequent bidders. To date, these clarifications
for positive competitor returns and the significant cross-sectional allotment
of these returns have been unexplored.
213
Studies carried out in the field of financial economics have examined
abnormal returns to offering companies. Jensen and Ruback (1983),
Jarrell, Brickley and Netter (1988), Jarrell and Poulsen (1989) and
Andrade, Mitchell and Stafford (2001) abbreviated a substantial body of
proof spanning four decades and concluded that the absolute
announcement period return to bidders is normally zero or to some extent
negative. Andrade, Mitchell, and Stafford (2001) concluded that bidders
for public targets showed average abnormal announcement return of -0.7%
over the period of 1973-1998. Offering company‘s profits were also
negative in each of the three sub periods investigated. Bradley and
Sundaram (2004) found drastically constructive performance for offers
acquiring US companies during the 1990s, but only when the pre-
announcement period is incorporated. Eckbo and Thorburn (2000) stated
that offers from the United States receive immaterial profits when
acquiring Canadian companies. Roll (1986), Jensen (2004), and Shleifer
and Vishny (2003) debated that the influence of hubris and overvaluation
as reasons for bidder profits. Additional factors influencing bidder profits
include type of payment [Huang and Walkling (1987), Travlos (1987), and
Lane and Yang (1983)], directorial structure, and nationality of the target
company [Faccio, McConnell, and Stolin (2007), Fuller, Netter, and
Stegemoller (2002) Moeller, Schlingemannand and Stulz (2004, 2005)].
Lastly, Masulis, Wang, and Xie (2007) concluded a significant negative
relation between the existence of anti-takeover prerequisites and acquirer
profits.
214
Bidder Returns of Public Targets:
Mulherin and Boone (2000) examined acquisition and
divestiture activity from 1990 through 1999 of 1,305 Value Line
companies. They found that both acquisitions and divestitures create
wealth, which they computed by the combined stock price response to
the announcement. An average target return of 20.2% in the three-day
window around the acquisition showed a somewhat negative but
insignificant bidder return. They also found that combined bidder and
target returns were significantly correlated to the relative value of the
target (target value/bidder value). They concluded that the wealth
effects were directly connected to the size of the event for acquisitions
(and divestitures) and were coherent with a synergistic hypothesis for
the transactions. Bradley, Desai, and Kim (1988) found that surplus
returns to bidders on the announcement of a takeover decrease from
about 4% in the 1960s to 1.3% in the 1970s and then to 23% in the
1980s (all statistically significant). However, they also found positive
combined gains for bidders and targets in takeovers for each period.
Weston et al.‘s (2001) examination of the evidence on returns to
acquirers in takeovers noted numerous reasons why the returns to
bidders may have decreased over time. The Williams Act (adopted in
1968) made the tender offer procedure more costly and time-
consuming for bidders. In the 1980s, takeover defenses adopted by
companies, state antitakeover laws, and judicial verdicts defending
targets, all caused further shift in the bargaining balance from bidder
companies to target companies. These outcomes put up a crucial
question. If acquirer returns are not positive, then why do companies
215
make acquisitions? There were several possible explanations. Weston
et al. (2001, p. 221) noted that zero returns to bidders were uniform
with a competitive market in which companies earn ―normal‖ returns
in their operations. By this standard, Bruner (2001, p. 14) concluded
―60 to 70% of all M & A transactions were associated with financial
performance that at least compensated investor for their opportunity
cost.‖
Additionally, there are numerous complexities24 in estimating
bidder returns. First, targets may be diminutive relative to the bidder,
so even good acquisitions could have slight impact on the bidder‘s
stock price. Second, the stock price response to an acquisition can only
denote the surprise element of the acquisition. If an acquirer is known
to be engaging in an acquisition strategy, the stock price response to
any acquisition announcement will only represent how the market
perceives that acquisition to be dissimilar from the projected
acquisition. Third, if the target resists the takeover, the takeover
procedure could take a long time. Thus, the hesitant outcome of the
event makes it tricky to isolate the market‘s observation of the offer.
24
The explanatory variables are suggested by economic theory, and then the common assumption
has been that the Ordinary Least Squares(OLS) and Generalized Least Squares (GLS) estimates of
the cross-sectional parameters can be used to test theoretical predictions. The standard OLS and
GLS estimators are inconsistent.
Abnormal returns from announcements occurs when insiders possessed confidential information
not reflected in market prices prior to the event, outside investors used both the announcement of a
voluntary event and their knowledge of insiders‘ incentives to infer private information. Outsiders
inferred that insiders believe the event to have a positive net present value. If this truncation is
ignored in cross-sectional regressions, then estimators of cross-sectional coefficients are
inconsistent.
With voluntary corporate events, economically motivated managers can control the type, timing,
or magnitude of public announcements. - Rational managers voluntarily initiate an event only if it
provides some personal or corporate benefit. (Eckbo, Maksimovic, and Williams, 1990)
216
Hietala et al. (2003) raised objections to the explanation of
bidder returns. They mentioned that the announcement of a takeover
disclosed information about numerous effects comprising the possible
synergies in the combination, the stand-alone values of the bidder(s)
and target(s), and the split in value among the companies. They
suggested that it is generally impossible to disentangle these effects
and infer the meaning of the market‘s responses to a takeover
announcement. Hietala et al. presented a model that explained several
exclusive cases to exercise bidder and target stock price movements to
estimate the market‘s estimate of synergies and over payment—
comprising cases where a transaction is not completed or where a
takeover race has exactly two bidders. Empirically, they showed that
the winning bidder for Paramount, Viacom, won by being eager to
overpay more than its rival, QVC in the bidding race even though
QVC had superior synergies with Paramount.
Bidder Returns of Private Targets
There is little research on method-of-payment choice or wealth
effects when the target is a private company and in actual fact none
when the target is a subsidiary of another company. Chang (1998)
investigated bidder returns to companies acquiring 281 privately held
targets from 1981 through 1992 and evaluated them to bidder returns
for 255 public targets from 1981 through 1988. He found no significant
abnormal returns for a two-day window for bidders who acquired
private targets with cash. However, bidders who bought private targets
with stock have a 2.64 per cent return. This led them to conclude that
217
when making a stock acquisition, a large block-holder, or several
block-holders may be formed from the target shareholders. If the
block-holders were more proficient to monitor the events of the
bidding company management, the performance of the bidding
company would enhance. To test this, Chang divided the bidders by
whether or not a new block-holder in the bidder emerges from the
private target company. He found a 4.96% announcement abnormal
return if a new block-holder is formed versus a 1.77% return if there is
no new block-holder; both of these abnormal returns were significant,
as was their difference. Though large block-holders can be created for
both private and public targets, this effect is more likely with private
targets since public targets generally have less concentrated ownership.
This discrepancy may be compensated somewhat, however, by the
truth that public targets tend to be larger than private targets and
therefore receive a larger ownership stake in the bidder. In addition,
private target directors may exercise the takeover as a walk out
approach and be incompetent (or dispassionate) of acting as effective
monitors. Thus, block-holder deliberations are not conclusive in
explaining discrepancies in bidder returns based on the public/private
difference.
Hansen and Lott (1996) also studied the profits to bidders
acquiring private and public targets. They considered the profits to
bidder‘s acquiring 252 private and public targets from 1985 to 1991.
Their results concluded that the bidders earned 2 per cent higher return
when acquiring a private company. In 65 per cent of the offers for
218
public targets, the acquirer return was negative, while in only 43 per
cent of the offers for the private targets, the acquirer return was
negative. They presented an alternative explanation than block-holder
formation for why acquirers do comparatively better in an acquisition
of a private target than a public target. They also hypothesized that
since shareholders are diversified, the goal of the director of a
company is not to enlarge shareholder value but to maximize the value
of the shareholder‘s portfolio. Thus, when a public bidder acquires a
public target, diversified shareholders will be indifferent to how the
profits from the acquisition is divided, believing they own stock in
both companies. The negative returns of the acquirer were
compensating by the positive profits of the target. However, when a
public acquirer acquires a private target, the bidder‘s shareholders will
capture part of the profits of the acquisition, believing the offer was
value increasing. To sum up, the literature is not conclusive regarding
returns to bidder and target firms, either individually or collectively.
Hence, area remains open for investigation with Indian corporate data.
C. Indian M & A
The study conducted by Chakrabarti (2008) precisely dealt with
the question of whether Indian acquirers create value or destroy in the
short run and also in the long run for the period of 2000 to mid-2007
for 388 acquisitions. He found that the cumulative abnormal return
(CAR) for three day event window (-1, +1) was significantly positive
but the significance of the results goes away after adjusting for the
business. He also found that in the long run acquirers are creating
219
value but compared to pre-acquisition period they are performing
worse. One of the drawbacks of the study was that it used market
adjusted returns to estimate abnormal returns. The sample size was
also for a smaller period and didn‘t cover the period from 1991 to
2000, as M & A phenomenon in India had picked up after
liberalization.
Zhu and Malhotra (2008) examined international acquisitions
by Indian companies for the period of 1999 to 2005. Their study
illustrated that the Indian stock market reacts positively to the
acquisition announcement. However, positive abnormal return last for
three days, after that it becomes negative. Gubbi et al (2010) did an
event study of 425 cross-border acquisitions by Indian companies
during 2000- 2007. They also opined that the Indian acquirers created
value in international acquisitions and the value created was higher
when the target companies were located in advanced economic and
institutional environments (Pawaskar, 2001; Beena, 2004; Mantravadi
and Reddy, 2007; Kumar and Rajib, 2007; Mantravadi and Reddy,
2008a; Mantravadi& Reddy, 2008b; Bhaumik and Selarka, 2008)
studied Indian M & A and analyzed post acquisition operating
performance of the acquirers. Some of these studies have also
compared pre and post operating performance of the acquirers. The
results of these studies are mixed. Some have shown that the operating
performance of acquirers improved after acquisitions while some other
studies got the opposite results. Also, in some cases, the acquirer
resorted to divestiture after sometime, rejecting the synergy hypothesis.
Therefore, question remains as to why firms acquire targets?
220
The focus of companies from the emerging markets acquiring
the companies in the developed markets is primarily an investigation of
opportunities rather than utilization of available resources (Wright et.
al.., 2005). Latest technological competence is sought (Cantwell,
1992), to expand prospective absorptive capacity of such companies
(Zahra and George, 2002). This facilitates such companies to attain
universal competitiveness in the long run, and shift the newly built-up
competence to the home country, thereby enhancing competitive
advantage of the company. The market mechanism in the emerging
economies is not conducive to obtaining these tangible and intangible
resources optimally, and to grow them internally takes time (Gubbi et.
al, 2010). In particular, the acquisition route to gaining these means
may be eye-catching for the emerging economy companies in view of
their glueyness, and their synergistic value as a complement to the
existing resource base of these acquirers. The emerging economy
companies have been active targets for the developed economy
companies, but the emerging economy companies have also acquired
targets in the developed countries25, particularly in the latest merger
wave. The share of the developing economy acquirers has, however,
been lower compared to the emerged economy acquirers purchasing
the developing economy companies (World Investment Report, 2011).
The developed economy companies entering the emerging economies
through acquisitions is a somewhat new phenomenon. Divergent to
present wisdom on domestic M & A, the developed market acquirers
25
Tata‘s acquisition of Corus in point as an example.
221
post significant positive gains upon acquisition of a publicly listed
emerging market target companies. The key to value creation in this
context of evils arising from incomplete contracts is acquisition of
majority control. Acquisition of minority stake does not result in value
creation for the developed economy acquirer (Chari, Ouimet and
Tesar, 2004).
A popular belief is that M & A reinforce businesses by making
their moves more synergetic. M & A activities have been a universal
form, staple business movement for more than four decades in North
American and European markets before reaching its grown-up stage in
the 1990s. In Asia, most of the M & A events have taken place only
after the Asian financial tragedy in 1997. M & A tricks have not only
captured the focus and concentration of a large section of the
community but have also concerned the examination of governments
in Asian economies (Wong A, 2009). The motives are that: first, most
of the Asian governments encouraged the M & A of companies so as
to lift competitiveness and to trim down cost. Economic dominance
would be concentrated to a few multinational enterprises due to M & A
events. Secondly, as the Asian stock markets become more urbanized,
shareholders knowledge about the market has enhanced substantially.
Tiny investors are habitually in a sticky situation when they are
required to decide whether or not to sell their shares in opposite of a
bid as they do not have information, data and understanding about the
gain-loss status of the M & A game. (Ghosh and Ruland,1998).
222
5.3. Research Methodology:
Choice of sample:
The data on M & A events were obtained from different sources,
namely, the M & A database of the Securities and Exchange Board of India
(SEBI), the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), Yahoo Finance. Domestic M &
A announced during the year 2002-2011 periods were taken into
consideration, on account of two reasons. First, pre-2002 M & A events
involving unrelated private sector companies were few in number and data on
them was not readily available. Second, the Indian market did not have the
required strength and institutional distinctiveness for meaningful event study
analysis until the transformations that gave constitutional status to SEBI in
1992 and Competition Commission of India (CCI) in 2002 (came into
existence in January 2003).
An examination of the available data suggests that the year 2002-2011
period was marked by hundreds of M & A announcement in India under the
supervision of SEBI. However, a closer look at these actions reveal that almost
all these events involved merger of group companies, and or acquisition of
equity by promoters from the open market to enhance their equity share in the
companies that they were already in control. It is an investment protective
strategy to forestall acquisition offers from competitor companies. However,
these M & A events do have strategic decision making, they do not necessarily
involve change in management and control over the companies‘ resources.
Hence, analysis was limited to Indian acquiring companies that have
acquired target companies from India as well as overseas companies acquired
Indian targets and M & A deals were registered with SEBI. The number of
223
deals prior to this period (2002-2011) with sufficient information on various
deal characteristics is small. Due to unavailability of data LBOs, spin offs,
recapitalizations, exchange offers, repurchases, minority stake purchases,
acquisition of remaining interest or privatization deals were not included in the
sample. For deals characterized by creeping acquisitions, the SEBI registered
offer opening date was considered to be the announcement date, as it was
assumed that the information available to the market at later date would not
add much to the information already built into the company stock prices at the
earlier date of announcement.
There were several deals which were reported twice26 for the same
acquisition date or in some other cases few acquirers were announcing two
acquisitions at the same date. If an announcement date happen to be on no
trading day (including Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays) then the next
trading day was taken as event date (day 0). The share price data were
collected from BSE, NSE, and Yahoo Fiancé database for the period of -180
to +180 trading days around the event announcement date. There were 12
deals for which there were no stock price data available for target companies
or data available for less than 30 trading days. Thus, Final sample included
116 companies of which 80 were Indian and 36 overseas companies, some of
the acquiring companies were involved in multiple acquisitions. By the
standards of the literature, a sample of 116 companies is of a reasonable size27.
The distribution of 116 companies across industry groups is given in Figure
No-1.
26
- Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Industries Ltd and The Pratappur Sugar and Industries Ltd were acquired by Bajaj
Hindusthan Ltd
- FICOM Organics Ltd and Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd were acquired by Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd.
- Amit Spinning Industries Ltd and Indo Rama Textiles Ltd were acquired by Spentex Industries Ltd
27
Clark and Ofek (1994), for example, used a sample of 38 takeovers.
224
Figure-5:1 Distribution of M & A Events Across Industry Groups
Agriculture, Forestry and Mines and

Minerals
Banking, Investment, Insurance and
Financial Institutions
Pharmaceuticals/ Healthcare
2.59% Real Estate and Construction

6.90% 3.45% 11.21%
Services
6.90%
Telecommunications
6.90% 10.34%
Refineries (Oil and Petroleum)/Gas
5.17% Power / Energy & Utilities
5.17%
Breweries & Distilleries/Sugar/Food
5.17% Processing
Engineering/ Technology
3.45% 6.90%
Electronics -Consumer Goods
4.31%
3.45% Entertainment & media
6.90% 5.17% 6.03%
Information Technology, BPO and KPO
Automobile/Auto Ancillaries
Textiles
Steel, Aluminium, Alloys, Metals and

Iron
Event Study Methodology:
The event study methodology has been mainly inspired from Patell‘s
(1976) study of stock price behavior and Campbell, Lo and MacKinlay‘s
(1997) use of econometric methodologies in financial economics that included
event study methodology. Eckbo (1983) and Stillman (1983) first applied the
event study methodology to study the competitive effects of mergers. Others
(Mullin, Mullin, and Mullin (1995) and Chevalier (1995)) have since used this
approach to study either particular mergers or mergers in particular industries.
An event study attempts to measure the effect of a corporate event, such as a
merger or earnings announcement, by examining the response of the stock
price around the event date. One underlying assumption is that the market
processes information about the event in an efficient and unbiased manner.
225
The steps involved in an event study include defining an event that
delivers new information to the market, positioning forth a theoretical
explanation for the market reaction, identification of the set of companies
undergoing the event along with identifying the event date and defining the
event window, eliminating the companies that have additional relevant events
intersecting the event window, calculation of abnormal returns for the event
window, and analyzing the null hypothesis that the event had no influence on
share prices, that is, cumulative abnormal returns (CAR) do not differ
significantly from zero (McWilliams and Siegel, 1997). The time line applied
for an event study is shown below:
Where,
f) T0, represents the date of announcement of event;
g) P1, represents the pre-event period, expanding from T-1 to T0;
h) P2, represents the event period skirling, from T0 to T+1;
i) P3, represents the interim period, expanding from T+1 to T+2;
j) P4, represents the post outcome period, expanding from T+2 to T+3.
226
The trading days before the event date are designated with minus sign (-)
i.e. -1, -2, -3,…-180 and trading days after the event date are assigned plus
sign (+) as +1, +2 ,+3,…+180 days. This procedure identifies the consequence
of a particular event upon a security‘s rate of return (Fama, Fisher, Jensen and
Roll, 1969). It is based upon the hypothesis of capital markets being semi-
robust. The equity prices at any point in time combine all openly accessible
information, and the influence of any new open information gets factored into
the equity prices instantly. Given this, the announcement of a merger among
two companies would communicate information that would swift investors to
bid-up the price of a contending company‘s equity stock under any of the
following four conditions;
1. A competitor would benefit if an anticompetitive merger led to higher
product charges and thus superior profits.
2. Competitors would benefit if a merger discovered formerly unknown
opportunities to acquire efficiencies due to merger.
3. Rivals could benefit if the merging companies would be enforced to
dispossess resources at a concession in order to fulfill antitrust necessities.
4. Rivals would benefit if the merged company achieved a scale that
facilitated it to gainfully undertake an investment that payback the entire
industry (e.g., an advertising campaign).
Thus, it can be concluded that a merger is anticompetitive if the equity
share price of a rival upsurges when the merger is publicized and can discount
the efficiency justification, the divestiture explanation, and the free-rider
explanation (Simpson and Hosken, 1998).
227
There is general disappointment among researchers with accounting
data due to their ‗deficiency of ―meaning‖‘ and their suspicious usefulness
(Ball and Brown, 1968). The approach also emphasises on the stock prices
rather than accounting data as it attempts to avoid effects of decision-making
choices concerning accounting practices and falsification of data (Bromiley et.
al., 1988). Other than the market efficiency assumption, the event study
methodology also presumes that the market did not anticipate the event and
that there are no confounding events close to the event under considerations
that could influence the stock market valuations of the pivotal company
(McWilliams and Siegel, 1997).
In an ideal world, if the event date can be flawlessly identified, it
would be reasonable to look at the CAR for the [0, T] period, i.e., the CAR for
T+1 days starting from the day of the event. However, as argued by Fama et
al. (1969), it is time and again not possible to be certain about the date of an
event like the announcement of a M & A, and for that reason one might be
careful to experiment with [-T1, T2] windows when T1 is greater than or equal
to zero. If the CAR is positive, it implies that the investors felt that the event
generated shareholder value for the company, and vice versa.
5.4. The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Market Model:
To analyze for the existence of abnormal returns, a benchmark for
normal returns is essential. A parameter estimation period as recommended by
Brown and Warner (1985) is used to calculate a stock‘s Beta value. The Beta
value is the slope of the line obtained by regressing the index‘s returns to the
stock‘s returns, and is also used to assess the stock‘s instability as equated
228
with the market (Panayides and Gong, 2002). According to Panayides and
Gong (2002), an 11 day event window completely illustrates the results of an
event of interest. According to Brown and Warner (1985) and Dyckman,
Philbrick and Stephan (1984), a parameter estimation period of 120 days is
sufficient since daily returns data for the 120 days prior to the event date are
sufficient in formulating a benchmark for normal returns. Gaps in the data
(due to holidays) were ignored. Figure 1 provides a graphical depiction of the
event study approach, where the event window is [-11, 11] days and the
estimation window is [-180,-11] days.
Figure 5:2: Illustration of the Event Study Approach
The expected rate of return on share price of a company ‗i‘ on day ‗t‘
is computed as follows (McWilliams et. al., 1997):
Rit = αi + βiRmt +µ ………………………………………………………… (1)
Where,
Rit = Rate of return on share price of company ‗i‘ on day ‗t‘,
Rmt = Rate of return on a market portfolio of stocks,
αi, βi = the intercept term and systematic risk coefficient of stock ‗i‘,
respectively,
= model error term of security ‗i‘ on day t with expected value equal
to zero
229
The equation (1) calculates the expected returns for the equity stock for
the estimated period. The abnormal return is defined as the difference between
the actual returns on a stock i and its expected return. Therefore, the abnormal
return of a stock ‗i' at time ‗t‘ is as given in equation (2)
ARit= Rit- (ai+ biRmt)……………………………………………………… (2)
Where,
ARit = Abnormal return for the ‗ith‘ company at time ‗t‘,
ai and bi = OLS parameter estimates obtained from regression of Rit on
Rmt for the estimation period.
The abnormal return for each company over the forecast period was
standardized. The cumulative abnormal return for security ‗i' is the sum of
abnormal returns in a given time period [t0, t1] is defined as equation (3).
............................................................................ (3)
The sample average abnormal return at time t, ARt, is the arithmetic
mean of n stocks is defined as in equation (4)
…………………………………………… (4)
The sample average cumulative abnormal from event time t0to t1, is the
sum of ARt from t0to t1is defined in equation (5)
…………………….……………………… (5)
230
5.5. Empirical Results
The average cumulative abnormal returns (CAR) for the total sample
size and various sub samples, along with their significance level is given in the
table – 5:1. This study was conducted for 116 M & A during the period 2002
-03 to 2010-11. The announcement days of the other M & A events could not
be identified as those companies were not registered with any recognized
stock exchange and daily equity price data was unavailable. The results
indicated that CAR (-11, +11) and CAR (-180, 0) were negative i.e. -0.08% &
-4.86% respectively and positive CAR (0, +180) i.e. 4.6% for foreign
companies but none were statistically significant. Indian companies also
indicated that CAR (-11, +11) and CAR (-180, 0) were negative i.e. -0.21% &
-2.2% respectively and positive CAR (0, +180) i.e. 1.82% but none were
statistically significant and same trend was observed for the whole sample. In
other words, the investors certainly did not feel, on an average, that the M & A
events involving the domestic as well as foreign acquirers were value
enhancing. Also, they did not strongly feel that they were value reducing
either as average CAR (-180, +180) of total sample size for Indian as well as
foreign companies since returns were equals to 0%. As mentioned above, this
brings into question the ability of Indian capital market(s) in drawing accurate
inference about the quality of corporate governance of listed companies,
and/or quality of strategic decisions taken by the management of these
companies who are often owners of controlling shares in these companies
(Bhaumik and Selarka, 2008).
231
Interestingly, at total sample size as well as at Indian and foreign
companies level average CAR (-11, +11) is found to be negative i.e. -0.17%,
-0.21% and -0.08% respectively. This finding is consistent with negative
acquirer returns reported by Eger (1983). Acquiring company share prices
declined, on an average by 4% from 5 days prior to merger bid announcement
to 10 days afterward (Eger, 1983; Firth 1980).
Industry Group Analysis
What is true for the whole sample is also true for industry sub groups.
For this, the average CAR for different industries is classified under three
categories i.e. Primary, Manufacturing, and Services for different periods are
given in the table – 5:1. On an average for the 23 day CAR (-11, +11) the
shareholders of acquirers company lost by 2.22% for Primary sector, 1.08%
for Manufacturing sector, while shareholders of acquirers gained by 1.48% in
Services sector but companies from financial sector registered loss of 1.06%.
The pre event window CAR (-180, 0) the shareholders of acquiring companies
lost by 13.67% for Primary sector, 5.96% for Manufacturing sector while
shareholders of service sector had gained by 7.64% but shareholders of
financial sector had lost by 32.67% while post event window CAR (0, +180)
explained reverse trend compared to CAR (-180, 0) as shareholders from
Primary sector gained by 11.69%, 5.55% for Manufacturing sector but
shareholders from Service sector lost by 7.82% but shareholders of financial
sector had gained by 32.86% and it was significant at 95% level compared to
Service sector. The CAR (-180, +180) showed no gain or no loss as average
CAR was close to 0% for Indian companies as well as for foreign companies
and industries like primary, manufacturing and service sector also highlighted
232
average CAR tending to 0%. This finding is similar to hubris hypothesis i.e.
there are absolutely no gains available to corporate takeovers, the average
increase in the target company‘s market value should then be more than offset
by the average decrease in the value of the acquiring company (Roll, 1986).
CAR of Acquiring Group
As reported in table –5:4 for acquiring companies in the sample, the
median values of CAR, two event window periods were negative i.e. CAR
(-11, +11) for -0.4% and CAR (0, +180) for -1.33% while pre event window
showed positive return (1.03%) although these values are having less than the
mean values for the same event window period. It shows that more than 50%
acquisitions of the total sample are creating significant negative value to their
shareholders in CAR (-11, +11) and CAR (0, +180) post event window while
pre event window (CAR (-180, 0) creating positive value to their shareholders.
Average of CAR trend was opposite as pre event window showing negative
value while post event window depicting positive value to their shareholders
and same pattern was noticeable at Indian acquiring companies as well as
foreign acquiring companies. The pattern at industry level was similar to
average CAR as primary, manufacturing and financial sectors noticed negative
value for CAR (-11, +11) and pre event window while post event window
noticed positive value while service sector noticed positive value for CAR
(-11, +11) and pre event window while post event window showed negative
value. It showed that around 50% acquisitions of primary, manufacturing, and
financial sectors created negative value for their shareholders for CAR (-11,
+11) during pre-event window but post event window experienced positive
value while service sector noticed positive value for CAR(-11, +11) and
negative value for post event window.
233
CAR of Target Companies
As reported in table –5:5 for target companies in the sample, the
median values of CAR, two event window periods were positive i.e. CAR
(-11, +11) for 0.27% and CAR (0, -180) for 6.88% while post event window
showed negative return (-7.03%) although these values are having less than
the mean values for the same event window period. It shows that more than
50% acquisitions of the total sample are creating significant positive value to
their shareholders in CAR (-11, +11) and CAR (0, -180) window while post
event window (CAR (+180, 0) creating negative value to their shareholders.
Average of CAR trend was alike as pre event window showing positive value
while post event window depicting negative value to their shareholders. The
pattern at industry level was similar to average CAR as primary and
manufacturing sectors noticed negative value for CAR (-11, +11) while post
event window noticed negative value for manufacturing, services and finance
sectors but primary sector noticed positive value. However, for pre event
window showed negative value for primary sector while manufacturing,
services, and finance sectors noticed positive value. It showed that around
50% acquisitions of primary, and manufacturing sectors created negative value
for their shareholders for CAR (-11, +11), during pre-event window showed
positive value for manufacturing, services and finance sector but post event
window experienced negative value for the same sector.
234
CAR of Indian and Foreign Companies
The average CAR for acquiring Indian and foreign companies by
industries is shown in Table-5:7 for CAR (-11, +11) event window, pre event
window CAR (-180, 0) and post event window CAR (0, +180). A primary and
financial sector consists of 4 companies, (1 foreign and 3 Indian) and 8
companies (2 foreign and 6 Indian). The primary, manufacturing and financial
sectors have negative CAR for (-11, +11) window and pre event window
while post event window noticed positive returns. The shareholder of primary
sector from India had gained 17.88% in post event window while experienced
loss of 19.93% in pre event window. However, shareholders of foreign
companies had lost by 6.88% in post event window but gained by 5.11% in
pre event window. The shareholders of Indian financial sector companies also
had gained by 28.86% in post event window while lost by 25.76% in pre event
window but foreign shareholders registered very high gain by 53.84% in post
event window while they lost by 53.38% in pre event window. The value
enhancement of shareholder also noticed in manufacturing and service sectors
in post and pre event window for companies from India and same trend was
observed in case of foreign companies i.e. Indian manufacturing sector had
gained 3.70% in post event window while service sector had gained 7.59% in
pre event window and 9.97% gained for manufacturing sector in post event
window while 7.73% gain showed in post event window for service sector
companies from outside India.
235
Measurement of Combined Value
The combined value (i.e. Target Company + Acquiring Company) of
average cumulative abnormal returns (CAR) for the total sample size and
various sub-samples, along with their significance level is highlighted in the
Table – 5:3. At total sample size level (i.e. all companies) average CAR is
positive except for CAR (0, +180) post event window and same trend was
observed in Indian as well as foreign companies. The shareholders of primary
sector had lost by 3.94%, 1.49% for Manufacturing sector while service sector
noticed gain by 3.45% but financial sector had lost by 0.03% an average CAR
(-11, +11) event window. The pre event window observed loss by 14% for
primary sector, 27.38% for financial sector, but manufacturing and service
sector noticed gain by 3.07% and 16.44%. The gain of Service sector was
significant at 95% level compared to financial sector. The pre event window
CAR (-180, 0) noticed opposite trend compared to post event window CAR (0,
+180) as shareholders who had gained in CAR (0, +180) had sustained loss in
CAR (-180, 0) event window and loss making sector had turned out to be
profit making sector for respective shareholders in registered stock exchange
like primary sector had loss of 14% in CAR (-180, 0) event window but in
CAR (0, +180) had profit of 12.03%.
As reported in Table – 5:6, the median values of CAR for combined
value i.e. acquiring and target companies for sample, two event window
periods were positive i.e. CAR (-11, +11) for 0.09% and CAR (-180, 0) for
6.45% while post event window noticed negative value (-6.11%) although
these values were having less than average values for the same event window
period. It showed that more than 50% acquisitions of the sample were creating
236
significant positive value to their shareholders in CAR (-11, +11) and CAR
(-180, 0) pre-event window while post event window (i.e. CAR (-0, +180))
creating negative value to their shareholders. On an average, CAR trend was
similar in all companies as pre event window creating positive value while
post event window creating negative value to their shareholders and the same
pattern was noticed for Indian and foreign acquiring companies. The pattern at
industry level is similar to average CAR as primary, manufacturing and
financial sectors noticed negative value for CAR (-11, +11) while post event
window noticed positive value for primary and financial sectors while
manufacturing and service sectors noticed negative value i.e. -4.72% and -
11.67%. It may be concluded that around 50% acquisitions of primary,
manufacturing, and financial sectors created negative value for their
shareholders for CAR (-11, +11). However, pre event window (i.e. CAR
(-180,0)) created negative value for primary and financial sectors while
manufacturing and service sectors provided positive value but post event
window (i.e. CAR (0,+180)) provided positive value for primary and financial
sector while manufacturing and service sectors noticed negative values for
respective acquiring and target companies shareholders.
Table- 5:8 presents average CAR for combined value of foreign and
Indian Companies. The primary sector noticed negative value for CAR (-11,
+11) (-5.86%) and pre event window (-17.47%) but post event window
noticed positive value (15.27%) while foreign companies in primary sector
have very small percentage movement in all three event windows. The
shareholders of Indian manufacturing sector have lost (1.22%) in CAR (-11,
+11) and post event window (-6.35%) but gained 5.98% in pre event window,
shareholders of foreign manufacturing sector also have lost (2.14%) in
237
CAR (-11, +11) and pre event window (-3.88%) but seen gain of 3.36% in
post event window. The service sector provided similar trend for Indian and
foreign shareholders as event window and pre event window noticed gain of
3.54% and 19.02% for Indian company‘s shareholder while gain of 3.28% and
11.62% for foreign company‘s shareholders but both lost in post event
window. The shareholders of foreign companies in financial sector noticed
very high profit of 50.64% in post event window while loss (-49.28%) was
observed in pre event window as well as in event window (-1.76%),
shareholders of Indian companies also had same trend i.e. high profit of
20.45% in post event window while loss (20.08%) in post event window and
very minor profit (0.55%) in event window.
These results are contrary to the findings in developed markets as
explained by Andrade et al (2001) but support the findings from previous
studies on Indian markets (Chakrbarti, 2008; Zhu and Malhotra, 2008; Gubbi
et al, 2010). The results contribute significantly to existing literature
understating the wealth effect of Indian acquirers with rigorous methodology
and the large sample size covering the period of 2002-03 to 2010-11. It almost
covers the entire period after the liberalization of Indian economy as there
were very few acquisitions by Indian public companies that took place
between 1991 and 1993. These results also have implications on the findings
about the value creation/ destruction on acquisition announcement throughout
the world. As most of the studies on the wealth creation at the time of
acquisitions have been made in developed markets, the results might differ in
other emerging economies like these results. A very recent study by
Alexandridis et al (2010) has concluded similar results for emerging
economies.
238
5.6. Conclusion:
There is a significant debate in the literature about the pros and cons of
concentration of ownership in companies. On one hand, it can eliminate the
conflict of interest between managers and owners that can lead to sub-optimal
company‘s performance. On the other hand, it can lead to entrenchment of
insiders who can then escape disciplining by the capital market as well as by
debt holders, enabling them to take improper decisions that might be
unfavorable to the value of the company, and thereby adversely affect
minority shareholders. Researcher observed that there is empirical evidence in
the literature to suggest that both are possible. Analysis suggests that M & A
of Indian companies registered with SEBI in India during the 2002-03 to
2010-11 period, did not add to any significant cumulative abnormal returns in
event window but pre event window and post event window noticed high
cumulative abnormal returns where companies having gained in pre event
window noticed loss in post event window and vice versa. The shareholders of
financial sector noticed loss by 32.67% in pre event window while 32.86%
gained in post event window. The results also show that the Indian acquirers
did not create value even after changing the event window period from 23
days to 180 days while CAR (-180, +180) returns for all sample size were
equal to 0%, it means there is no significant abnormal gain or loss in 361 days
window. These results are contrary to the findings about wealth effect on
acquisition in the developed markets but support the hubris hypothesis i.e.
there are absolutely no gains available to corporate takeovers, the average
increase in the target company‘s market value should then be more than offset
by the average decrease in the value of the acquiring company.
239
5.1. APPENDIX
Table – 5:1
Market reaction to M&A announcements (%)

CAR CAR CAR CAR
Acquirer Companies N
(-11, +11) (0, +180) (-180, 0) (-180,+180)
All Companies 116 -0.17 2.69 -3.03 0.01
Indian Companies 80 -0.21 1.82 -2.2 0.01

Foreign Companies 36 -0.08 4.6 -4.86 0
Primary (A) 4 -2.22 11.69 -13.67 0

Manufacturing (B) 61 -1.08 5.55 -5.96 0.03
Services (C) 43 1.48 -7.82 7.64 (D) -0.02
Finance (D) 8 -1.06 32.86 © -32.67 0
Note: (A), (B), © and (D) indicate significance at the 5% levels
Table – 5:2
Market reaction to M&A announcements (%)

CAR CAR CAR CAR
Target Companies N
(-11, +11) (0, +180) (-180, 0) (-180,+180)
All Companies 108 0.57 -8.82 8.98 0.002
Primary (A) 2 -3.44 .68 -0.67 0.00

Manufacturing (B) 52 -0.79 -9.28 9.32 0.00
Services © 41 2.10 -6.70 7.00 0.01
Finance (D) 13 1.78 -15.07 15.35 0.00
240
Table - 5:3
Market reaction to M&A announcements

CAR CAR CAR CAR
Combined (Target + Acquirer) N
(-11, +11) (0, +180) (-180, 0) (-180,+180)
All Companies 116 0.36 -5.52 5.34 0.01
Indian Companies 80 0.41 -7.99 7.71 0.01

Foreign Companies 36 0.25 -0.04 0.06 0
Primary (A) 4 -3.94 12.03 -14 0

Manufacturing (B) 61 -1.49 -3.48 3.07 0.03
Services (C) 43 3.45 -16.28 16.44 (D) -0.01
Finance (D) 8 -0.03 28 © -27.38 0
Table – 5:4
Market reaction to M&A announcements (Median)

CAR CAR CAR CAR
(-11, +11) (0, +180) (-180, 0) (-180,+180)
All Companies 116 -0.40 -1.33 1.03 0.00
Indian Companies 80 -0.4 -0.75 0.59 0.00

Foreign Companies 36 -0.38 -1.91 2.01 0.00
Primary (A) 4 -4.5 11.97 -14.2 0.00

Manufacturing (B) 61 -1.18 0.67 -0.45 0.00
Services (C) 43 0.12 -3.57 3.19 0.00
Finance (D) 8 -0.33 29.65 -28.49 0.00
Table-5:5

CAR CAR CAR CAR
Target Companies N
(-11, +11) (0, +180) (-180, 0) (-180,+180)
All Companies 108 0.27 -7.13 6.88 0.00
Primary (A) 2 -3.44 0.68 -0.67 0.00

Manufacturing (B) 52 -0.25 -8.2 7.11 0.00
Services (C) 41 1.85 -3.72 4.59 0.00
Finance (D) 13 1.48 -9.12 10.72 0.00
241
Table - 5:6

CAR CAR CAR CAR
Combined (Target + Acquirer) N
(-11, +11) (0, +180) (-180, 0) (-180,+180)
All Companies 116 0.09 -6.11 6.45 0.00
Indian Companies 80 -0.03 -6.17 6.45 0.00

Foreign Companies 36 0.29 -4.82 4.04 0.00
Primary (A) 4 -7.94 14.26 -16.1 0.00

Manufacturing (B) 61 -0.6 -4.72 5.27 0.00
Services (C) 43 2.07 -11.67 13.54 0.00
Finance (D) 8 -0.6 20.88 -19.88 0.00
Table – 5:7

CAR CAR CAR CAR
(-11, +11) (0, +180) (-180, 0) (-180,+180)
Indian Companies 80 -0.21 1.82 -2.2 0.01
Primary (A) 3 -3.16 17.88 -19.93 0.00
Manufacturing (B) 43 -0.91 3.70 -4.05 0.04
Services (C) 28 1.31 -7.92 7.59 -0.03
Finance (D) 6 -0.81 25.86 © -25.76 (D) 0.00
Foreign Companies 36 -0.08 4.6 -4.86 0

Primary (A) 1 0.59 -6.88 5.11 0.00
Manufacturing (B) 18 -1.48 9.97 -10.52 0.00
Services (C) 15 1.79 -7.64 7.73 0.00
Finance (D) 2 -1.81 53.84 -53.38 0.00
242
Table - 5:8

CAR CAR CAR CAR
Combined (Target + Acquiring) N
(-11, +11) (0, +180) (-180, 0) (-180,+180)
Indian Companies 80 0.41 -7.99 7.71 0.01

Primary (A) 3 -5.86 15.27 -17.47 0.00
Manufacturing (B) 43 -1.22 -6.35 5.98 0.04
Services (C) 28 3.54 -19.1 19.02 (D) -0.02
Finance (D) 6 0.55 20.45 © -20.08 0.00
Foreign Companies 36 0.25 -0.04 0.06 0

Primary (A) 1 1.79 2.3 -3.6 0.00
Manufacturing (B) 18 -2.14 3.36 -3.88 0.00
Services (C) 15 3.28 -11.03 11.62 0.00
Finance (D) 2 -1.76 50.64 -49.28 0.00
243
Table – 5:9 Cumulative Abnormal Return Event Period (-11 to +11 days)
All Total Ind_T:Line of Business of Target Company Ind_A: Line of business of acquired company
1.00 Primary Manufacturing Services Finance Primary Manufacturing Services Finance
116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
All Total 1.00
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Answering 116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
Base 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
24 1 14 6 3 1 14 7 2
<= -2.24
20.7% 25.0% 24.6% 14.3% 23.1% 25.0% 23.0% 16.3% 25.0%
23 0 12 11 0 0 15 7 1
A8:Cumulative Abnormal -2.23 - -0.11
19.8% 0.0% 21.1% 26.2% 0.0% 0.0% 24.6% 16.3% 12.5%
Return Event
Period (-11 to +11 days) 23 2 17 2 2 2 15 5 1
-0.10 - 0.86
19.8% 50.0% 29.8% 4.8% 15.4% 50.0% 24.6% 11.6% 12.5%
23 1 8 10 4 1 9 11 2
0.87 - 3.33
19.8% 25.0% 14.0% 23.8% 30.8% 25.0% 14.8% 25.6% 25.0%
23 0 6 13 4 0 8 13 2
> 3.34
19.8% 0.0% 10.5% 31.0% 30.8% 0.0% 13.1% 30.2% 25.0%
Descriptive Mean 0.53 -1.72 -0.72 2.05 1.78 -1.72 -0.41 1.97 1.03
Descriptive Median 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 1.48 0.00 0.00 1.64 0.74
Table – 5:10 Average Abnormal Return :Event Period (-11 to +11 days)
All
Total Ind_T:Line of Business of Target Company Ind_A: Line of business of acquired company
116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
All Total 1.00
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Answering 116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
Base 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
39 1 24 11 3 1 27 9 2
A9:Average Abnormal <= -0.04
33.6% 25.0% 42.1% 26.2% 23.1% 25.0% 44.3% 20.9% 25.0%
Return :Event
Period (-11 to +11 days) 39 3 22 9 5 3 21 12 3
-0.03 - 0.11
33.6% 75.0% 38.6% 21.4% 38.5% 75.0% 34.4% 27.9% 37.5%
38 0 11 22 5 0 13 22 3
> 0.12
32.8% 0.0% 19.3% 52.4% 38.5% 0.0% 21.3% 51.2% 37.5%
Descriptive Mean 0.02 -0.12 -0.08 0.14 0.11 -0.12 -0.05 0.14 0.05
244
Table – 5:11 Cumulative Abnormal Return: Post Estimation Period (0 to +180 days)
All
116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
All Total 1.00
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Answering 116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
Base 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
24 0 12 8 4 0 13 11 0
<= -17.39
20.7% 0.0% 21.1% 19.0% 30.8% 0.0% 21.3% 25.6% 0.0%
-17.38 - - 23 0 13 5 5 0 15 6 2
A10:Cumulative Abnormal 8.72 19.8% 0.0% 22.8% 11.9% 38.5% 0.0% 24.6% 14.0% 25.0%
Return: Post Estimation
Period (0 to +180 days) -8.71 - - 24 1 9 12 2 1 9 10 4
3.20 20.7% 25.0% 15.8% 28.6% 15.4% 25.0% 14.8% 23.3% 50.0%
-3.19 - 22 2 12 7 1 2 11 8 1
0.74 19.0% 50.0% 21.1% 16.7% 7.7% 50.0% 18.0% 18.6% 12.5%
23 1 11 10 1 1 13 8 1
> 0.75
19.8% 25.0% 19.3% 23.8% 7.7% 25.0% 21.3% 18.6% 12.5%
Descriptive Mean -8.21 0.34 -8.47 -6.54 -15.07 0.34 -9.03 -8.46 -4.86
Descriptive Median -5.73 0.00 -7.07 -3.59 -9.12 0.00 -7.07 -7.02 -4.38
Table 5:12 Average Abnormal Return: Post Estimation Period (0 to +180 days)
All
116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
All Total 1.00
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Answering 116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
Base 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
A11:Average
Abnormal 39 0 21 11 7 0 23 13 3
<= -0.09
Return: Post 33.6% 0.0% 36.8% 26.2% 53.8% 0.0% 37.7% 30.2% 37.5%
Estimation -0.08 - - 39 1 16 17 5 1 17 18 3
Period (0 to 0.00 33.6% 25.0% 28.1% 40.5% 38.5% 25.0% 27.9% 41.9% 37.5%
+180 days) 38 3 20 14 1 3 21 12 2
> 0.01
32.8% 75.0% 35.1% 33.3% 7.7% 75.0% 34.4% 27.9% 25.0%
Descriptive Mean -0.06 0.00 -0.06 -0.05 -0.13 0.00 -0.06 -0.07 -0.05
Descriptive Median -0.06 0.00 -0.07 -0.03 -0.11 0.00 -0.07 -0.06 -0.04
245
Table – 5.13 Cumulative Abnormal Return (%) Estimation Period (0 to -180 days)
116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
All Total 1.00
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Answering 116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
Base 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
24 1 10 12 1 1 12 10 1
<= -0.25
20.7% 25.0% 17.5% 28.6% 7.7% 25.0% 19.7% 23.3% 12.5%
A6: Cumulative 25 2 14 8 1 2 13 9 1
-0.26 - 3.99.
Abnormal Return (%) 21.6% 50.0% 24.6% 19.0% 7.7% 50.0% 21.3% 20.9% 12.5%
Estimation Period (0 to - 20 1 9 8 2 1 9 6 4
180 days) 4.00 - 7.99
17.2% 25.0% 15.8% 19.0% 15.4% 25.0% 14.8% 14.0% 50.0%
20 0 9 6 5 0 11 7 2
8.00 - 16.00
17.2% 0.0% 15.8% 14.3% 38.5% 0.0% 18.0% 16.3% 25.0%
27 0 15 8 4 0 16 11 0
>16.00
23.3% 0.0% 26.3% 19.0% 30.8% 0.0% 26.2% 25.6% 0.0%
Descriptive Mean 8.36 -0.34 8.51 6.83 15.35 -0.34 9.03 8.80 5.28
Table 5:14 Average Abnormal Return (%) Estimation Period (0 to -180 days)
116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
All Total 1.00
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Answering 116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
Base 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
39 3 22 13 1 3 22 12 2
A7: Average Abnormal <= 0.00
33.6% 75.0% 38.6% 31.0% 7.7% 75.0% 36.1% 27.9% 25.0%
Return (%) Estimation
Period (0 to -180 days) 39 1 15 18 5 1 17 17 4
0.01 - 0.10
33.6% 25.0% 26.3% 42.9% 38.5% 25.0% 27.9% 39.5% 50.0%
38 0 20 11 7 0 22 14 2
> 0.11
32.8% 0.0% 35.1% 26.2% 53.8% 0.0% 36.1% 32.6% 25.0%
Descriptive Mean 0.12 0.00 0.17 0.06 0.13 0.00 0.16 0.08 0.04
246
Table 5: 15 Cumulative Abnormal Return: Total (+180 to -180 days)

116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
All Total 1.00
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Answering 116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
A12:Cumulative Base 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Abnormal 115 4 57 41 13 4 61 42 8
<= 0.00
Return:Total (+180 99.1% 100.0% 100.0% 97.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97.7% 100.0%
to -180 days) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
> 0.01
0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0%
Table - 5:16: Average Abnormal Return: Total (+180 to -180 days)

116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
All Total 1.00
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
A13:Average Answering 116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
Abnormal Base 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Return: Total (+180 116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
-1.48 - 0.00
to -180 days) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
247
Table – 5:17 Cumulative Average Abnormal Return (%)
116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
All Total 1.00
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Answering 116 4 57 42 13 4 61 43 8
Base 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
39 1 22 13 3 1 26 10 2
A14: Cumulative <= -0.05
33.6% 25.0% 38.6% 31.0% 23.1% 25.0% 42.6% 23.3% 25.0%
Average Abnormal
39 3 24 8 4 3 22 11 3
Return (%) -0.04 - 0.14
33.6% 75.0% 42.1% 19.0% 30.8% 75.0% 36.1% 25.6% 37.5%
38 0 11 21 6 0 13 22 3
> 0.15
32.8% 0.0% 19.3% 50.0% 46.2% 0.0% 21.3% 51.2% 37.5%
Descriptive Mean 0.08 -0.12 0.03 0.15 0.12 -0.12 0.05 0.15 0.05
248
References
1621.
Alexandridis, G. Petmezas, D. and Travlos, N. (2010), ―Gains from mergers
and acquisitions around the world: new evidence‖, Financial Management
Journal, Vol. 39 (4), pp.1671-1695.
Al-Sharkas, A. Hassan, K. & Lawrence, S. (2008), ―The Impact of Mergers
Evidence‖, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 35 (1-2), pp.50-
70.
Andrade, E. Mitchell, M. and Stafford E. (2001), ―New Evidence and
Perspectives on Mergers‖, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15 (2), pp.
103-120.
1209-1228.
Asquith, P. (1983), ―Merger bids, uncertainty, and stockholder returns‖,
Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 11(1-4), pp. 51–83.
Bae, Kee-Hong, Kang, Jun-Koo, and Kim, Jin-Mo., (2002), ―Tunneling or
Value Added? Evidence from Mergers by Korean Business Groups‖, Journal
of Finance, Vol. 57 (6), pp. 2695-2740.
249
Ball, R. and Brown, P. (1968), ―An empirical evaluation of accounting income
numbers‖, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.6 (2), pp.159–178.
Barney, J. (1988), ―Returns to bidding firms in mergers and acquisitions:
reconsidering the relatedness hypothesis‖, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 9 (S1),pp. 71–78.
Ben-Amar, W. and Andre, P. (2006), ―Separation of ownership from control
and acquiring firm performance: the case of family ownership in Canada‖,
Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 33 (3-4), pp. 517–543.
Science, Vol.54 (6), pp. 1037-1051.
Boone, A. and Mulherin, J. (2007), ―How Are Firms Sold?‖, Journal of
Finance, Vol. 62 (2), pp. 847-875.
Bradley, M. Desai, A. and Kim E. (1983), ―The rationale behind inter-firm
tender offers‖, Journal Financial Economics, Vol. 11 (1-4), pp. 183–206.
acquisitions and their division between the stockholders of target and
acquiring firms‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 21 (1), pp. 3–40.
Bromiley, P. Govekar, M. and Marcus, A. (1988), ―On Using Event-Study
Methodology in Strategic Management Research‖, Technovation, 8(1-3), pp.
25-42.
Brown, J. and Warner B. (1980), ―Measuring Security Price Performance‖,
Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 8 (3), pp.205-258.
Brown, J. and Warner B. (1985), ―Using Daily Stock Returns: The Case of
Event Studies‖, Journal of Financial Economics,Vol.14 (1), pp.3 – 31.
250
Bruner, R. (2001), ―Does M&A Pay? A survey of evidence for the decision
maker‖, Working Paper, Darden Graduate School of Business, University of
Virginia.
Campbell, Y. Lo, W. and MacKinlay, C. (1997), The Econometrics of
Financial Markets, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Cantwell, J. (1992), ―The Theory of Technological Competence and Its
Application to International Production‖, in D. G. McFeteridge (Ed.), Foreign
Investment, Technology and Economic Growth, Calgary: University of
Calgary Press.
Chacar, A. and Vissa, B. (2005), ―Are Emerging economies less efficient?
Performance persistence and the impact of business group affiliation‖,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol.26 (10), pp. 933-946.
Chakrabarti, R. (2008), ―Do Indian acquisitions add value?‖, Money and
Finance, Vol.3 (3), pp. 1-10.
and Bidder Returns‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 53 (2), pp. 773-784.
Chatterjee, S. (1986), ―Types of synergy and economic value: the impact of
acquisitions on merging and rival firms‖, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.
7(2), pp.119–139.
Chatterjee, S. (1992), ―Source of value in takeovers: synergy or
restructuring—implications for target and bidder firms‖, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 13(4), pp.267–286.
Chevalier, J. (1995), "Capital Structure and Product-market Competition:
Empirical evidence from the supermarket industry," American Economic
Review, Vol. 85(3), 415-435.
251
Clark, K. and Ofek, E. (1994), ―Mergers as a means of restructuring distressed
firms: An empirical investigation‖, Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, Vol. 29 (4), 541-565.
Davidson, W. Dutia, D. and Cheng L. (1989), ―A Re-Examination of the
Market Reaction to Failed Mergers‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 44 (5), pp.
1077–1083.
Dodd, P. and Ruback, R. (1977), ―Tender Offers and Stockholder Returns: An
Dyckman, T. Philbrick, D. Stephan, J. and Ricks, W. (1984), ―A comparison
of event study methodologies using daily stock returns: A simulation
approach‖, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 22, pp. 1-33.
Eckbo, B.Espen, M. and Jeffrey W. (1990), ―Consistent estimation of cross-
sectional models in event studies‖, Review of Financial Studies, Vol.3 (3), pp.
343–365.
Eckbo, B. and Thorburn, K. (2000), ―Gains To Bidder Firms Revisited:
Domestic And Foreign Acquisitions In Canada‖, Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 35 (1), pp.1-25.
Eckbo, E. (1983), ―Horizontal Mergers, Collision, and Stockholder Wealth‖,
Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 11 (1-4), pp. 241-273.
_________ (1985), ―Mergers and the Market Concentration Doctrine:
Evidence From The Capital Market‖, Journal of Business, Vol. 58 (3), pp.
325-349.
252
________ (1992), ―Mergers and the Value of Antitrust Deterrence‖, Journal of
Finance, Vol. 47 (3), pp. 1005-1029.
Eckbo, E. Wier, P. (1985), ―Anti-merger Policy Under The Hart-Scott-Rodino
Act: A Reexamination of the Market Power Hypothesis‖, Journal of Law and
Economics, Vol. 28 (1), pp. 119-149.
Eger, C. (1983), ―An empirical test of the redistribution effect in pure
exchange mergers‖, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol.18
(4), pp. 547-572.
Fama, E. and French, K. (1993), ―Common risk factors on the returns on
stocks and bonds‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 33 (1), pp. 3–56.
Fama, E. (1970), ―Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and
Empirical Work‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 25 (2), pp. 383-417.
Fama, F. Fisher, L. Jensen M. and Roll, R. (1969), ―The adjustment of stock
prices to new information‖, International Economic Review, Vol. 10 (1), pp.
1-21.
(1), pp. 81-96.
Fuller, K. Netter, J. and Stegemoller, M. (2002), ―What Do Returns to
Ghatak, M. and Kali, R. (2001), ―Financially interlined business groups‖,
Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol.10 (2), pp. 591-619.
253
Ghosh, A. and Ruland, W. (1998), ―Managerial Ownership, the Method of
Payment for Acquisitions, and Executive Job Retention‖, Journal of Finance,
Vol. 53 (2), pp. 785-798.
Gubbi, R. Aulakh, S. Ray, S. Sarkar, B. and Chittoor, R. (2010), ―Do
International Acquisitions by Emerging-Economy Firms Create Shareholder
Value & quest: the Case of Indian Firms‖, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 397-418.
Hansen, Robert G. and John, L. (1996), ―Externalities and corporate objectives
in a world with diversified shareholders/consumers‖, Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 31 (1), pp. 43–68.
Harford, J. (2005), ―What Drives Merger Waves‖, Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 77 (3), pp. 529-560.
Hietala, P. Kaplan, S. and Robinson, D. (2003), ―What Is The Price Of
Hubris? Using Takeover Battles To Infer Overpayment And Synergies‖
Financial Management, Vol. 32 (3), pp. 5-31.
Huang, Y. and Walkling, R. (1987), ―Target Abnormal Returns Associated
with Acquisition Announcements: Payment, Acquisition Form, and
Managerial Resistance‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 19 (2), pp.
329-349.
Offers: Evidence from Three Decades‖, Financial Management, Vol. 18 (3),
pp. 12-19.
Jarrell, G. Brickley, J. and Netter, J. (1988), ―The Market for Corporate
Control: The Evidence since 1980‖, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 2
(1), pp. 49–68.
254
Jensen, M. (1988), ―Takeovers: Their causes and consequences‖, Journal of
Kini, O. Kracaw, W. and Mian, S. (2004), ―The nature of discipline by
corporate takeovers‖, Journal of Finance, Vol.59 (4), pp. 1511-1552.
Knapp, M. Gart, A. and Chaudhry, M. (2006), ―The impact of mean reversion
of bank profitability on post-merger Performance in the banking industry‖,
Kumar, B. and Rajib, P. (2007), ―Characteristics of merging firms in India: an
empirical examination‖, Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision-Makers, Vol. 32
(1), pp. 27-44.
Kummer, D. and Hoffmeister, R. (1978), ―Valuation Consequences of Cash
Langetieg, T. (1978), ―An Application of a Three Factor Index to Measure
Stockholders' Gains from Merger‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 6
(4), pp. 365–384.
Lesnik, R. Molen, V. and Gangopadhyay, S. (2003), ―Business groups,
financing constraints and investment: The case of India‖, Journal of
Development Studies, Vol.40 (2), pp. 93-119.
(4), pp. 17–33.
255
___________ (1987), ―Merger strategies and stockholder value‖, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 8 (1), pp. 39–53.
Maksimovic, V. and Phillips, G. (2001), ― The Market for Corporate Assets;
Who engages in Mergers and Asset Sales and Are There Efficiency Gain?‖,
Journal of Finance, Vol.56(6), pp.2019-2065.
function of merging firms‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 11 (1-4),
pp. 155–181.
_______ (2008a), ―Post-merger performance of acquiring firms from different
industries in India‖, Journal of Finance and Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 192 –
204. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1317757 accessed on
10th July 2011.
________ (2008b), ―Type of merger and impact on operating performance: the
Indian experience‖, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. (43), pp. 66-74.
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1318239 accessed on 10th July
2011.
Masulis, W. Wang, C. and Xie, F. (2007), ―Corporate Governance and
Acquirer Returns”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 62 (4), pp. 1851–1889.
256
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (1997), ―Event Studies in Management
Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues‖, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40(3), pp. 626-657.
41 (2), pp.193-229
Moeller, B. Schlingemann, F. and Stulz, M. (2004), "Firm size and the gains
from acquisitions", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 73(2), pp. 201-228.
_______ (2005), ―Wealth Destruction on a Massive Scale? A Study of
Acquiring- Firm Returns in the Recent Merger Wave", Journal of Finance,
Vol. 60(2), pp. 757-782.
Mullin, G. Mullin, J. and Mullin, W. (1995), "The competitive effects of
mergers: stock market evidence from the U.S. Steel dissolution suit‖, Rand
Journal of Economics, Vol. 26(2), pp. 314- 330.
Panayides, M. and Gong X. (2002), ―The Stock Market Reaction to Merger
and Acquisition Announcements in Liner Shipping‖, International Journal of
Maritime Economics, Vol.4 (1), pp.55-80.
Behavior: Empirical Test", Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 14 (2), pp.
246-276.
Pawaskar, V. (2001), ―Effect of mergers on corporate performance in India‖,
Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 19-32.
Business, Vol. 59 (2), pp. 197-216.
257
Ruback, R. (1977), ―Tender Offers and Stockholder Returns: An Empirical
Analysis‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.5 (3), pp.351-374.
11 (1-4), pp. 85-119.
Seth, A. (1990), ―Sources of value creation in acquisitions: an empirical
investigation‖, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11(6), pp. 431–446.
Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (1990), ―The takeover wave of the 1980s‖,
Science, Vol. 249 (4970), pp. 745-749.
________ (2003), ―Stock Market Driven Acquisitions‖, Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol.70 (3), pp.295-311.
Singh, H. Montgomery, C. (1987), ―Corporate acquisition strategies and
economic performance‖, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8(4): pp. 377–
386.
Sirower, M. (1997), The Synergy Trap: How companies lose the acquisition
game, New York: The Free Press.
Song, M. and Walkling, R. (2000), ―Abnormal Returns to Rivals of
Acquisition Targets: A Test of the Acquisition Probability Hypothesis‖,
Journal of Financial Economics, 55(2), 143-172.
Stillman, R. (1983), ―Examining Antitrust Policy Towards Horizontal
Mergers‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.11 (1-4), pp. 225-240.
Suk, Y. and Sung, M. (1997), ―The Effects of the Method of Payment and the
type of offer on Target Returns in Mergers and Tender Offers‖, The Financial
Review, Vol. 32 (3), pp. 591-608.
258
Travlos, N. (1987), ―Corporate Takeover Bids, Methods of Payment, and
Bidding Firms' Stock Returns‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 42 (4), pp. 943-963.
Travlos, N. and Papaioannou, J. (1991), ―Corporate Acquisitions: Method of
Payment Effects, Capital Structure Effects, and Bidding Firms‘ Stock
Returns‖, Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, Vol.30 (4), pp. 3-22.
Wansley, J. Lane, W. Yang, H. (1983), ―Abnormal Returns to Acquired Firms
by Type of Acquisition and Method of Payment‖, Financial Management,
Vol.12 (3), pp. 16-22.
Weston, J. Juan, S. and Johnson, B. (2001), Takeovers, Restructuring, and
Corporate Governance, 3rd ed., New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Wong, A. (2009), ―The Effects of Mergers and Acquisition Announcements
on the Security Prices of Bidding Firms and Target Firms in Asia‖,
International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol.1 (2), pp.274-283.
Wright, M. Filatotchev, I. Hoskisson, E. Peng, W. Campus, J. and Campus, M.
(2005), ―Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the
conventional wisdom‖, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42(1), pp. 1-33.
Zahra, A. and George, G. (2002), ―Absorptive capacity: A review, re-
conceptualization, and extension‖, Academy of Management Review, Vol.
27(2), pp. 185–203.
Zhu, C. and Malhotra, S. (2008), ―Announcement effect and price pressure: an
empirical study of cross-border acquisitions by Indian firms‖, International
Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Vol.13 (1), pp. 24-41.
259
WEBSITE:
Beena, P. (2004), ―Towards Understanding the Merger-wave in the Indian
on 15th May 2011.
Bhaumik, S. and Selarka, E. (2008), ―Impact of M&A on firm performance in
India: Implications for concentration of ownership and insider entrenchment‖,
William Davidson Institute Working Paper Number, 907, February 2008.
http://www.sumonbhaumik.net/wdi_wp907.pdf accessed on 15th May 2011.
Bradley, M. Sundaram, K. (2004), ―Do Acquisitions Drive Performance or
Does Performance Drive Acquisitions?‖, Working Paper, available at
SSRN://ssrn.com/abstract=592761 accessed on 21st May 2010.
Chari, A. Ouimet, P. and Tesar, L. (2004), ―The Returns to Developed-Market
Acquirers in Emerging Markets‖, http://ssrn.com/abstract=891250 accessed on
15th May 2011.
Working Paper, Miami University. http://ssrn.com/abstract=499310 accessed
on 15th May 2011.
260
Faccio, M. McConnell, J. and Stolin, D. (2007), ―When Do Bidders Gain? The
Difference in Returns to Acquirers of Listed and Unlisted Targets‖, Working
Paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract=467488 accessed on 15th May 2011.
Simpson, D. and Hosken, D. (1998), ―Are Retailing Mergers Anticompetitive?
An Event Study Analysis‖, Federal Trade Commission, pp.3-6.
http://www.ftc.gov/be/workpapers/wp216.pdf accessed on 15th May 2011.
261
CHAPTER - 6
CASES OF STUDIES
This chapter presents case studies of L&T takeover bid by Reliance before the
initiation of restructuring of reforms during post reform period. We have chosen case
of Hutch acquired by Vodafone and merger of Bhari AXA with RIL.
CASE - 1
AN ABORTED TAKE-OVER, OF LARSEN & TOUBRO (L&T)
Reliance Industries: The Reliance Group, established by Dhirubhai H. Ambani, is
India's largest private sector enterprise, with businesses in the energy and materials
value chain. Group's annual revenues were in excess of US$ 66 billion28 in the year
2011-2012. It is a Fortune 500 company and is the largest private sector company in
India.
Backward vertical integration has been the strategy of the evolution and growth of
Reliance Industries. Started with textiles in the late seventies, it diversified in
polyester, fibre intermediates, plastics, petrochemicals, petroleum refining and oil and
gas exploration and production.
A company by name of Reliance Textile Industries Private Limited was incorporated
in Maharashtra on 11th February, 1966 and set-up synthetic fabrics mill in the same
year at Naroda near Ahmedabad in Gujarat. With effect from 28th June, 1975,
Reliance Textile Industries was converted into a public limited company. Reliance
Textile Industries Ltd was amalgamated with Mynylon Ltd with effect from 1st July
1975. The name of Manylon Ltd was then changed to Reliance Textile Industries Ltd
28
http://www.ril.com/html/aboutus/aboutus.html accessed on 1st June 2012
262
with effect from 11th March, 1977. The Company‘s yarns were marketed under
various brand names such as Texafit, Textron, Texlene, Poly-dyed, and Poly-twist and
fabrics was marketed under the brand name ―VIMAL‖.
Operation during 1980-88: Numerous varieties of fabrics were introduced including
worsted suitings. The company undertook to enlarge the production to meet the heavy
demands. In 1980, sales increased to 207.6 crores. Between 1981-1985, both sales
and profits continued to show improvement. In 1986 sales further improved by 23.3%
over the previous year but profits declined due to unrestricted smuggling of polyester
fabrics, large imports of polyester staple fiber and higher levy on Purified Terepthalic
Acid (PTA) as compared to dimethyl terepthalate. In 1987-88 (18 month) both sales
and profits showed improvement over the previous year. The annual growth in the
production and sales of polyester yarn was maintained and substantial quantities of
this product were exported to USA, EEC, and Korea. The company worked on a
programme for marketing products made in India under Du Pont technology, in the
USA and other countries using the world-wide market network of Du Pont under this
brand name29.
1990-201030: In 1990-91, sales was 2098.34 crores and net profit was 125.55
crores, RIL entered into the petroleum refining by establishing a subsidiary, Reliance
Refineries Private Ltd (RRPL) in 1991 and later its name was changed to Reliance
Petroleum Limited (RPL). However, in 1993-94 turnovers increased to 5345 crores
and profit before tax increased by 79%. Whereas RPL came with a public offering,
which was India's largest ever IPO31at that time and became the first Indian company
to heave capital on the foreign market, through a Global Depositary Receipt (GDR)
29
The Stock Exchange Official Directory, The Bombay Stock Exchange, 1988
30
The Annual Reports of RIL, 1990-91 to 2010-11
31
RPL raised 21.72 billion ( 2172 crores) while net offer to the Indian public amounted to 8.62
billion.
263
issued in Luxembourg and second GDR was completed in 1994. In 1997-98, Indian
oil industry reached at a state of collapse where RIL announced a plan to build one of
the world's largest and most modern petroleum refining complexes in Jamnagar,
Gujarat, at a cost of $6 billion. The government approved the plan, and permitted
right to import petroleum directly rather than going through Indian Oil and this also
facilitated RIL to reduce operating costs. The turnover increased to 13404 crores and
net profit increased to 1653 crores in 1997-98. The Jamnager site's production
capacity was two-fold that of any other Indian refinery and placed among the top five
in the world. In 2002, turnover was 65061 crores and net profit was 4104 crores.
RPL was merged into RIL, which became one of the country's top three companies in
petrochemicals sector.
In 2002, Dhirubhai Ambani died and Ambani brothers took-over as heads of RIL. It
raised its supremacy of the country's petrochemicals sector through its acquisition of
Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd (IPCL)32. In 2004, Reliance commenced a
diversification effort, targeted the telecommunications sector, particularly the fast-
growing cellular business. Reliance set up its own phone service, Reliance Infocomm.
In 2005, conflicts increased between Mukesh and Anil Amabni and negotiated
settlement was initiated by Smt. Kokilaban (Mother of Mukesh and Anil Ambani)
who proposed a breakup of RIL into two equal parts. Mukesh Ambani remained as
Chairman & Managing Director of the company's petroleum, petrochemical, and
textiles businesses while Anil Ambani organised the company's telecommunications,
capital finance, energy, and other operations. The division of RIL took place in 2006.
The company's plans included a $6 billion extension of the Jamnagar site, doubling it
in size and making it the world's largest refinery by 2009. The company also
announced that it intended to spend $10 billion on further oil exploration efforts,
targeting the international market and launched a $1.5 billion expansion of its
Reliance gas station chain, with the goal of 6,000 stations in 2010. It also expanded
32
In May, 2002, RIL acquired Government of India‘s 26% stake in IPCL for 1491 crores.
264
internationally, becoming the world's leading manufacturer of polyester yarn with the
acquisition of Germany's Trevira in 2010 where turnover was 200400 crores and net
profit was 16236 crores reported by RIL.
2011-12: Revenue crossed 3,30,000 crores mark ( 3,39,792 crores), net profit
crossed 20,000 crores mark ( 20,040 crores), total assets crossed 2,95,000 crores
mark ( 2,95,140 crores), and declared dividend of 85%, payout of 2,531 crores,
unmatched in the Indian Private sector. Turnover increased by 31.4% compared to
2010-11, export increased by 41.8% compared to 2011 (i.e. 208042 crores) which
was 14% of India‘s total export33.
Larsen and Toubro: In 1938, the company was a partnership firm of two Danish
Engineers, H. Holck Larsen, and S. K. Toubro. It was established in 1946 under the
Indian Companies Act, 1913 with objective to carry on business as ―civil, mechanical,
electrical, chemical and agricultural engineers; as manufacturers; as importers and
exporters and as contractors‖. In 1950, it was converted into a public limited
company. It is a technology, engineering, manufacturing, and construction company.
The company in 1985 represented large number of overseas manufacturers, notably
manufacturers of tractors, agricultural machinery, dairy machinery, film cooling
plants and general industrial and engineering activities covered a wide range of
engineering products. The company used the trade name ‗L&T‘ for Sheeps foot
rollers, ‗LT-LK‘ for switchgear and motor starters and ‗L&T‘, ‗Gulbarco‘ for petrol
dispensing pumps, The company also manufactured flour milling, feed milling and
grain silo plants in collaboration with Messrs. Buhler Bros., Uzweil, Switzerland in
198934.
33
http://www.ril.com/downloads/pdf/PR20042012.pdf accessed 2nd June 2012
34
265
More than 7 decades of a strong, customer-focused strategy and the continuous search
for world-class quality have facilitated it to achieve and sustain leadership in all its
major lines of business. It has an international presence, with a global spread of
offices. It continues to grow its overseas manufacturing footprint, with facilities in
China and the Gulf region. The company's businesses are supported by a wide
marketing and distribution network, and have established a reputation for strong
customer support. It believes that progress must be achieved in harmony with the
environment. A commitment to community welfare and environmental protection are
an integral part of the corporate vision. In response to changing market dynamics, it
has gone through a phased process of redefining its organisation model that facilitates
growth through greater levels of empowerment.
Operation during 1980-8935: In 1980, sales rose to 122.85 crores with
corresponding improvement in profits. The company was authorised by the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) to use its U, U2, and S code symbol stamps
on pressure vessels and boilers manufactured by the company. Low tension
switchboards were supplied to Brown Boveri, West Germany for a grain silo project
in Iraq. Export orders were secured for 500 petrol-dispensing pumps for the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). In 1981-82, sales amounted to 205.5 crores and
profits also showed improvement. The financial results of L&T also included
financial results of Utakal Machinery Ltd. which was merged with effect from 1st
April 1981. In 1982-83 sales included the income from construction activities and
shipping business amounted to 297.85 crores. The financial results for the year also
included financial figures of Engineering Construction Corporation Ltd., following
upon its merger with L&T with effect from 1st October 1982. In 1984-85, income
35
266
from sales increased to 446.57 crores with corresponding upturn in profits while in
1985-86 marginal increase showed in sales to 472.68 crores. In 1986-87 marginal
increase noticed in sales to 528 crores which were sharply increased to 710 crores in
1989.
1990-201036: In 1990-91, L&T entered into contract to take-over the tractor unit of
Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. It also modified a sponge iron plant of 880000 tonnes
per annum capacity for Essar Steel at Hazira, Surat. In 1992, L&T manufactured
public switching system with a capacity up-to 10,000 lines and 2GH2 microwave
transmission equipment of 30 channel and 120 channel capacity and they were
installed for field assessment by the Department of Telecommunications. In 1994-95
sales and other income was 3318 crores and Profit After Tax (PAT) was 277 crores.
Whereas sales was 4323 crores has shown an increase of 30% while PAT was
increased to 389 cores in 1995-96. A global scale glass container plant utilized the
state-of-the art technology was being set up in export alliance with Vetropack,
Switzerland. It signed of memorandum of intent with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd of
South Korea to materialize a joint venture for the production and marketing of a vide
spectrum of telecom products including large switches, transmission products and
paging systems. In 2001-02, it informed BSE that the company had entered into a
joint venture with Demag Ergotech of Germany. It has created an independent
company L&T EMSYS for software development. Sales and Other income was
8137.56 crores and PAT was 346.80, increased by 10% compared to 2000-01. In
2002, Grasim Industries increased its holdings in L&T to 13%. In 2005-06 sales and
other income increased by 38% but PAF reported increased by 85% compared to
2004-05. It entered into MOU with DSL enterprises Pvt. Ltd, for a merger under a
scheme approved by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). In
2007, sales and other income was 18041.13 crores, increased by 19% while PAF
36
http://www.moneycontrol.com/company-facts/larsentoubro/history/LT#LT accessed on 15th June
2012
267
increased by 49% ( 460.63 crores) compared to 2005-06. It set up joint ventures with
Japan's Toshiba Corp and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) to commission
manufacturing facilities for super-critical turbines and boilers used in coal-fired power
generation plants. In 2009-10 sales and other increased by 13% while PAT increased
by 26% compared to 2008-09.
2011-12: The manufacturing operations of businesses are located at Mumbai, Navi
Mumbai, Ahmednager, Vadodara, Coimbatore, and Mysore in India as well as in
Saudi Arabia, UAE (Jebel Ali, Dubai & Abu Dhabi), Malaysia, Indonesia, and
Australia. In 2010-11, revenue was 3,985 crores which were increased to 4,303
crores in 2011-12. Profit Before Income tax (PBIT) was 494 crores in 2011 which
decreased to 428 crores in 2011-1237, total assets crossed 29000 crores mark
( 29,007.37 crores) in 2010-11. Total turnover was 43,904.91 crores in 2010-11
which increased to 53,170.52 crores in 2011-12.
RIL and L&T: It has perhaps been the longest running drama in the Indian corporate
history, the takeover drama, and spread over 4 years. Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani sold of
their entire holdings in L&T to the AV Birla group and thus came to an end what is
also possibly the most debatable chapter in Indian corporate history. L&T‘s meeting
with Ambanis started after Manu Chhabria, the Dubai-based takeover tycoon, who
made attempts to acquire control of the engineering conglomerate L&T in mid-1987.
L&T, with an equity base of only 56 crore and a track record of profits (net profit of
28 crores on sales of 528 crores in 1987), was one of the best company available for
a takeover — apart from the 42% held by the financial institutions, no one held more
than 0.4% of the L&T stock.
37
http://www.larsentoubro.com/lntcorporate/common/ui_templates/HtmlContainer.aspx?res=P_EBG_B
ABT_AINT accessed on 3rd June 2012
268
Struggle for Corporate Control:
M R Chhabria acquired about 1.5% of stock in May-1987, Dhirubhai Ambani
also started acquiring shares of L&T from the market, and had accumulated around
10% stake by October 1988. Ambanis had apparently build-up business association of
some kind with L&T and awarded the popular petrochemical project at Hazira, near
Suart in Gujarat. L&T had been given the contract for supply of equipment and
construction of the Hazira project at a cost of 300 crores. Ambani's political
influence proved to be greater than that of M R Chhabria. It was said that,
apprehensive of M R Chhabria, N M Desai chairman of L&T decided to join hands
with Ambani and invited Ambanis to join the L&T board. Ambanis acquired more
L&T shares to justify their presence on the board but without the support of the
financial institutions, acquisition of L&T was difficult.
Role of Financial Institutions:
In May 1988, the Bank of Baroda (BoB), one of the nationalized commercial
bank, decided to get into investment banking and set-up a subsidiary called Bank of
Baroda Fiscal Services (BoB fiscal). In July 1988, it requested Unit Trust of India
(UTI), the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and General Insurance Corporation
(GIC) which in turn, helped to build-up portfolio of high growth equity shares. UTI,
LIC, and GIC decided to sell 33 lac shares of L&T to BoB fiscal at total cost of 270
million on 5th August 1988. BoB fiscal after two days sold L&T shares for 300
million to V B. Desai & Co, a company of shareholder who did a lot of work for RIL.
Later in August 1988, BoB fiscal repeated the same exercise with GIC to acquire 6 lac
equity shares of L&T for 141 million. These were also sold to V B. Desai & Co.
Two month later, V B. Desai then transferred the two lots of shares, to the Reliance
subsidiary Trishna Investments. On 10th October 1988, RIL subsidiary Trishna
investments acquired about 7% L&T stock (39 lac shares) through BOB fiscal.
269
Ambanis admitted that they stared acquiring L&T shares late in 1987 and stepped up
their acquiring in July 1988. In October 1988 according to Anil Ambani, ―the
Ambanis held 12.4% of L&T shares, 9% having been directly brought by RIL and the
rest by some investment subsidiaries‖ reported by Economic Times. The shares
brought by RIL were not sent to L&T for registration till October-1988.
Ambanis on Board of L&T:
On 28th April 1989 N M Desai resigned and on the same day three hours later
Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani was appointed as chairman. After becoming chairman,
Ambani announced the 'L&T vision' which included a mega issue of convertible
debentures for 920 crores as well as a preferential allotment to Reliance Industries
and Reliance Petroleum to increase the group's stake in L&T. On 22nd July 1989
Board of L&T approved the mega issue of 920 crores. The issue size was decreased
by 100 crores in August 1989, where a controversial resolution empowering the
board to borrow or lend 1,000 crores was also cancelled. On 28th June 1989, BoB
fiscal was authorised by L&T to acquire Reliance equity up-to 65 crores at a price
not exceeding 135 but this purchase was committed even before the shareholders of
L&T were asked on 27th July 1989. It was reported that 49 lac Reliance shares were
brought by BoB fiscal at a price of 131 per equity share (Paranjape, 1990).
On 13th September 1989, a writ petition was filed against the sale of 39 lac
shares of L&T by FIs and Bob fiscal and Ambanis‘ entry in L&T in Bombay High
Court38. The petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on grounds that the
sale of shares to Trishna was a business transaction and the petitioners preferred an
appeal in Supreme Court and got the stay on implementation of Mega issue on 29th
38
Shri Harish V. Reliance Textiles Industries Ltd [1989] FA/924/1989
270
September 198939. Due to legal action began on the transfer of shares acquired from
BOB fiscal, on 19th October 1989, Amabins sold back 39 lac shares of L&T to FIs,
ostensibly at a loss (bought at 70 while sold at 125 per share). On 9th November
1989, the financial institutions informed the court that they had bought back the
shares.
Intervention of Government:
There were indications of why L&T was important for Ambanis. It was a blue-
chip company with easier access to cash. Secondly, the engineering giant was just
what Ambanis needed to set up their cracker project without putting up the necessary
funds. He forced L&T to grant supplier's credit of 570 crores to Reliance for its
project. He also forced L&T to buy Reliance shares worth 76 crores allegedly from
group companies at a price not exceeding 135 per equity share. Mr. Dhirubhai
Ambanis‘ game could not last long as they were forced to abandon their plans after
their opponent Mr. V P Singh came to power at the Centre in December 1989. The
management power was restored back to the institutions from Ambanis. He was
forced to quit as chairman in favour of Mr. D N Ghosh, former chairman of State
Bank of India (SBI) but his nominees continued to be on the board of L&T40.
The first decision taken by Mr. D N Ghosh was to cut the size of the
controversial convertible issue to 640 crores. He discontinued the supplier's credit,
stating that he didn‘t want L&T to be a development bank for other private
companies. He also quietly sold the RIL shares acquired by L&T. On 2nd April 1990,
FIs requisitioned EGM of shareholders to have all RIL nominees removed from the
Board of L&T and Mr. D. H. Ambani resigned from Board of L&T on 19th April
39
N.ParthasarathyEtcvs Controller Of Capital Issues And another etc., 1991 SCR (2) 329, 1991 SCC (3)
153
40
Board of Directors of L&T Ltd appendix table-5
271
1990. On 29th June 1990, the L&T board decided to reduce the size of the debenture
issue from 820 crores to 640 crores and cancelled the supplier‘s credit to RPL. This
was to be done by reducing face value of the debenture to 235 instead of 300 for
public subscriptions. Despite the legal trials faced during Mr. V P singh's tenure,
Ambanis waited patiently for almost a year for more favourable political environment
that would change their fortunes. They didn‘t have to wait for very long as the tables
were turned when Chandra Shekhar government came into power on 21st November
1990 and Reliance shares leapt to their highest point in more than two years, to 240.
On 16th February 1991, Mr. D N Ghosh was asked to resign from the Chairmanship of
L&T on the pretext that the central government shouldn‘t play any role in the
operation of a private sector company. Incidentally, Mr. D N Ghosh submitted his
resignation to the finance ministry and not to the L&T board.
The tide seemed to turn in favour of the Ambanis in 18th April 1991, when the
Supreme Court (SC) ruled against Ghosh's decision of pruning the mega issue.
Further, the SC also maintained that the supplier's credit be re-established to RIL.
However, Ambanis were in no mood to avail of the facility as RIL planed a mega
convertible debenture issue of 520 crores to fund the project. Now the way was clear
for Ambanis to get back at the controls of L&T but they decided to wait for the
outcome of the general elections, which were round the corner i.e. 15th June 1991.
They were concerned as an unfavorable outcome of central government could again
pose a threat to their plans.
In 26th June 1991, the congress government came into power led by Mr. P V
Narasimha Rao, the Ambanis again made attempts to stage a comeback at L&T.
Trishna investments (subsidiary of RIL), requisitioned an Extraordinary General
Meeting (EGM) to elect Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani as chairman and Mr. Mukesh
272
Ambani as managing director of L&T. They were well prepared for a showdown at
the requisitioned EGM on August 26, 1991, with a considerable strength of proxies of
over 48% of equity capital had asked the financial institutions to withdraw from
voting on the controversial issues. It gave an impression that L&T was almost within
the control of Ambanis. The minority government followed pressure from members of
the opposition parties as well as some members of the ruling party. The central
government did not want to mess up as the parliament was in session. Dr. Manmohan
Singh (Finance Minister) was said to have directed the LIC chairman, Mr. M G
Diwan, to obtain a postponement of the EGM at any cost, including assurances of
supporting the Ambanis at a later stage. On the same day, two hours before the
meeting, the LIC chairman spoke to Mukesh Ambani and told him that unless the
motions were withdrawn the financial institutions would vote against them. The L&T
directors, including Mukesh and Anil Ambani, appeared on the stage, and chaos
erupted. Unaware of the Government's decision, distressed shareholders rushed the
microphones set up in the passageways and fired off questions and allegations. The
directors were shouted down as they tried to speak. Eventually they gave up and
retreated behind the back curtain to exit the auditorium through a stage door. A swarm
of shareholders surged onto the surrendered stage. The disputed EGM which lasted
for just 20 minutes, eye witnessed high drama after LIC nominee wanted an
adjournment but equity shareholders declined to evacuate the hall and demanding for
the appointment of Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani as chairman. A shareholder filed a petition
to stay the adjourned meeting challenging the appointment of Ambanis on L&T‘s
Board and forging of proxy forms on 2th September 1991(Paranjape, 1990). However,
court refused to stay the meeting but restrained Ambani to appoint Mr. Mukesh
Ambani as Vice-President at the adjourned meeting on 10th September 1991. He was
273
unhappy with the way things turned out, but it was generally assumed that the
adjournment was just a ruse to buy time.
However, in a sudden reversal, RIL decided to drop out of the race for L&T.
On September 16, 1991 at the reconvened EGM, RIL dropped the proposals to
appoint Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani as chairman and Mr. Mukesh Ambani as managing
director. RIL claimed they had discarded the declaration since they could not
guarantee the engagements of both Mr. Dhirubhai and son Mukesh subsequently for
the time being temporary injunction approved by the Bombay High Court with regard
to the proposal to appoint Mr. Mukesh Ambani as managing director of L&T but this
argument did not provide any solution. The real motive appeared to be that Ambanis
feared they might not have sufficient proxies (since many proxies were said to have
been misrepresented) to support their claim. In fact, an equity shareholder had filed a
case of falsification against Trishna investments and the issue was also debated in
parliament but with the dropping of the proposal the matter was diffused. The four-
year take over drama ended and L&T witnessed a period of relative peace.
Block – Holding of RIL in L&T:
The block-holding by RIL was controversial as how and when the Ambanis
acquired the 10.05 per cent stake in L&T, in the matter of Reliance‘s disclosure
obligations and possible insider trading charges, as the Securities Appellate Tribunal
stated in its judgment: ―It is common ground that RIL‘s group holding in L&T went
up from 4.80% on 31/10/2001 to 5.32% on 05/11/2001. It is therefore the case of the
respondent SEBI that the appellant was required to inform the company within 4
working days, i.e. by 09/11/2001, and the target company L&T was thereafter to
inform the stock exchange where its shares were listed. The stock exchanges would,
274
in turn, have put up this information on their websites for the information of investing
public enabling them to take timely investment/disinvestment decisions. The appellant
RIL having not done so, it renders them liable to appropriate penalty under section
15A (b) of the SEBI Act, 1992. The appellant‘s case in brief is that since their holding
of 5% had been duly notified under Regulations 6, and that since this information had
been in the public domain at least since 1992, they were covered under Regulations 6
and not under Regulation 7 of the Takeover Code.‖ In the above event, RIL freed
from the disclosure mess with a nominal fine and the matter was closed. However,
Ambani brothers (i.e. Mukesh and Anil) continued as members on the L&T board
while RIL was permitted to put three nominees on the board, a third director was
never appointed. Over the years, Ambanis' stake in the company declined from about
33% to as low as 7% (in March 2001). By the way, D N Ghosh was the last chairman
to serve on the L&T board. Since then the company has been professionally managed
by CEOs and MDs. However, the fear of another bid by RIL kept hanging over L&T
at regular intervals, the stock markets kept reacting to rumours of a re-entry of RIL at
L&T. RIL acquired around 4% equity shares between 6th July 2001 and 18th
November 2001 prior to sales of its complete 10.05% equity shares in L&T to the
Aditya Birla group company Grasim Industries.
On 18th November 2001, The rumor have finally been laid to rest, with
Ambanis selling their entire 10.05% stake in L&T to the Mr. Kumar Mangalam Birla
controlled Grasim industries at 306.60 a share (15th November 2001, BSE price of
L&T equity share was 208.5), amounting 7.665 billion. RIL reported a profit of
3.60 billion on L&T deal. Both Ambani brothers have stepped down from the L&T
board, paving the way for Mr. Kumar Mangalam Birla and his mother Rajashree
Birla.
275
Analysis of Wealth Effect of key events: RIL and L&T
Table No- 6:1 presents the Cumulative abnormal returns on RIL. On 5th Aug
1988, BoB fiscal acquired 25lac L&T equity shares from UTI, LIC and GIC, noticed
positive CAR for all windows i.e. CAR(-11,0), CAR(-11, +11), CAR (0,+11), CAR
(-1,+1) and CAR (-5,+5). However, on 11th October 1988, 12.4% equity shares of
L&T were registered on RIL account showed negative CAR for CAR (-11, 0), CAR
(-11, +11), CAR (0,+11), and CAR (-5,+5) while positive CAR was seen during
(-1, +1). On 6th January 1989, Trishna Investment, a Reliance subsidiary, acquired
L&T shares from BoB Fiscal where negative CAR was noticed for all windows while
on 23rd June 1989 L&T board decided to invest up to 70 crores in the equity shares
of RIL showed positive CAR for all windows. The Highest CAR is noticed in CAR
(-11, +11) on 29th June 1990 where L&T board decided to reduce the size of the
debenture issues from 820 crores to 640 crores while lowest CAR was show in (-5,
+5) on 2nd April 1990 where LIC of India, major shareholder in L&T had served the
notice for holding an EGM of shareholders for replacement of four RIL directors on
the board by others.
The CAR for L&T is reported in Table 6:2. On 5th Aug-88, BoB fiscal
acquired 25 lac L&T equity shares from UTI, LIC and GIC, where positive CAR is
noticed for CAR(-11,0), CAR(-11, +11), CAR (-1,+1) and CAR (-5,+5) while
negative CAR is seen for CAR (0, +11). However on 11th October 1988, 12.4% equity
shares of L&T were registered on RIL account showed negative CAR for CAR
(0,+11), CAR (-1, +1), CAR (-5,+5) while positive CAR was observed during (-11, 0)
and (-11, +11) windows. On 6th January 1989, Trishna Investment, a Reliance
subsidiary acquired L&T shares from BoB Fiscal where positive CAR was noticed for
all windows while on 23rd June 1989 L&T board decided to invest up to 70 crores in
the equity shares of RIL showed positive CAR for all windows, except for CAR (-11,
276
0). The Highest CAR is noticed in CAR (-11, +11) on 2nd April 1990 where LIC of
India, major shareholder in L&T gave notice for holding the EGM of shareholders for
replacement of four RIL directors on the board by others while lowest CAR was
noticed during (-5, +5). On 17th April 1990, Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani stepped down as
Chairman of the L&T board and was replaced by Shri D. N. Ghosh former Chairman
of State Bank of India (SBI) and Mukesh Ambani also resigned from Vice-
Chairmanship of L&T.
The combined CAR of L&T and RIL is given in Table 6:3. Positive CAR was
observed for all windows on 5th August 1988, 2nd April 1990, 29th June 1990, and 27th
August 1990 respectively. On 5th August 1988, BoB fiscal acquired 25 lac L&T
equity shares from UTI, LIC and GIC while on 2 nd April 1990, LIC of India, major
shareholder of L&T had given a notice for holding the EGM of shareholders for
replacement of four RIL directors on the board by others where CAR noticed positive
returns for all event windows but percentage was ranging from 0.003% to 0.606%.
However, on 29th June 1990, L&T board decided to reduce the size of the debenture
issues from 820 crores to 640 crores where again CAR had positive value for all
windows but percentage was ranging from 0.33% to 0.74%. On 27th August 1990,
EGM was called again to elect Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani as chairman and Mr. Mukesh
Ambani as managing director of L&T when CAR shown positive returns but
percentage was fluctuating from 0.1% to 0.60%.
On 9th November 1989, Financial Institutions informed the court that they had
bought back the equity shares from Trishna Investment while on 17th April 1990, Mr.
Dhirubhai Ambani stepped down as Chairman of the L&T board and was replaced by
D. N. Ghosh former Chairman of State Bank of India (SBI) event affected equity
277
shares price as negative CAR showed for all windows. The Highest CAR was noticed
in CAR (-11, +11) on 29th June 1990 where L&T board decided to reduce the size of
the debenture issues from 820 crores to 640 crores while lowest CAR was showed
in CAR (-11, +11) on 17th April 1990 where Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani step down as
Chairman of the L&T board and replaced by D. N. Ghosh (see appendix table-4 for
list of events).
Analysis of Wealth Effect of key events: RIL sold its L&T investment
to Birla Group:
RIL started acquiring equity shares of L&T from open market from 5 th
November 2001 till 12th November 2001. On 5th November 2001, positive CAR
noticed for CAR (-11, +11), and CAR (0, +11) while negative return showed in CAR
(-11, 0). JM Morgan Stanly (JMMS) on 6th November 2001 approached Grasim, a
Birla Group company to acquired equity shares of L&T from Reliance Industries
where positive CAR was noticed for all windows and uppermost CAR seen in CAR
(-11, +11) i.e. 6.86%. Higher CAR noticed in CAR (-11, +11), CAR (0, +11) and
CAR (-5, +5) window when RIL again started acquiring equity of L&T in 2001.
However, on 16th November 2001, RIL group sold 2.5 crores of L&T shares at around
50% premium and deal was finalized at total amount of 766.5 crores where stock
exchange reacted positively for all CAR windows except for CAR (0, +11). The
highest positive CAR of 7.3% was observed during (-11, +11) while lowest CAR was
noticed in CAR (-11, 0) in the events of RIL stake of L&T acquired by Birla Group.
The CAR for L&T is reported in Table 6:2. In November 2001, L&T shares
acquired once again by RIL where stock exchange shown positive reaction as profit
was noticed for window (-11, +11) and (-11, 0) in the month of November 2001 loss
is shown in CAR (-11, 0) and CAR (-1, +1) from 12th to 16th November 2001. On 9th
278
November 2001, CAR (0, +11) noticed negative CAR while all other windows
showed positive CAR when RIL raised its L&T holding to 9.53%. On 16th November
2001, RIL group finally sold 2.5 crores of L&T shares at around 50% premium when
positive CAR for (-11, 0) and (-11, +11) windows was observed while negative CAR
was noticed for windows (0, +11), (-1, +1) and (-5, +5). The highest positive CAR is
shown in CAR (-11, 0) by 26.40% while lowest and negative CAR is noticed in CAR
(0, +11) in November 2001 where initially RIL invested in equity shares of L&T and
then sold 10.14% equity shares to Birla Group at 766.5 crores.
The combined value of RIL and L&T in the month of November 2001 where
RIL initially acquired L&T equity shares then sold its enter holding of L&T to Grasim
Industries where combined CAR shown similar trend compared to CAR of L&T,
positive CAR is showed in the month of November 2001 for CAR (-11, 0) and CAR
(-11, +11) but in CAR (-5, +5) windows, all values are positive except on 16th
November 2001 event showed negative returns. The CAR (-1, +1) provided positive
returns till 9th November 2001 where RIL raised its holding to 9.53% but on 12th
November 2001 again RIL raised its holding to 10.05% where negative return is
noticed and same trend continue at the time of acquisition of L&T shares by Grasim
Industries. The highest positive CAR is showed in CAR (-5, +5) by 27.34% while
lowest and negative CAR is noticed in CAR (0, +11) on 12th November 2001 where
initially RIL invested in equity shares of L&T and then sold 10.05% equity shares to
Birla Group at 766.5 crores.
Conclusion:
After reviewing the case thoroughly by keeping the objectives of the research
study in mind, a critical analysis of the key events during the period of M & A was
done. It was found that the value of wealth of the RIL and L&T with respect to the
equity share value increased well before the acquisition and merger took place in its
real terms. However, it was found that L&T had exhibited significantly positive CAR
279
in maximum event window whereas RIL had exhibited fluctuations in CAR. It was
also observed that the backward vertical strategy adopted by RIL was interesting
which eventually helped the organizational growth over the period of time. However,
they had failed in taking over L&T despite several efforts. The case study appears to
refute hubris hypothesis but it may not be so due to weak regulatory regime and
inefficient market institutions which have been utilized effectively by the RIL
management.
280
6.1. APPENDIX
Table - 6:1 Presents the Cumulative Abnormal Returns (CAR) of RIL
CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR

Announcement Date
(-11, 0) (-11, +11) (0, +11) (-1, +1) (-5, +5)
5-Aug-88 0.018 0.053 0.03 0.002 0.031
11-Oct-88 -0.031 -0.096 -0.058 0.042 -0.036
6-Jan-89 -0.046 -0.057 -0.024 -0.031 -0.013
23-Jun-89 0.031 0.021 0.024 0.048 0.035
13-Sep-89 -0.018 0.017 0.031 0 0.033
19-Oct-89 -0.018 -0.077 0.006 0.095 0.008
9-Nov-89 -0.055 -0.101 -0.049 0.02 0.032
2-Apr-90 0.131 0.158 0.006 -0.021 -0.177
17-Apr-90 0.091 0.221 0.115 -0.008 0.131
30-May-90 0.009 0.044 0.035 0.01 0.022
29-Jun-90 0.385 0.469 0.222 0.213 0.246
27-Aug-90 0.255 0.137 -0.154 -0.05 -0.047
17-Sep-91 -0.063 0.096 0.087 -0.048 -0.036
5-Nov-01 -0.312 5.326 6.572 0.533 2.414
6-Nov-01 0.816 6.855 5.638 0.623 2.127
8-Nov-01 0.14 7.3 6.989 0.485 4.114
9-Nov-01 0.705 5.799 5.659 0.394 3.241
12-Nov-01 2.666 6.982 4.854 3.096 6.039
16-Nov-01 6.572 4.323 0.878 3.331 4.698
281
Table – 6:2 Presents the Cumulative Abnormal Returns of L&T
CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR

Announcement Date
(-11, 0) (-11, +11) (0, +11) (-1, +1) (-5, +5)
5-Aug-88 0.216 0.174 -0.012 0.084 0.131
11-Oct-88 0.101 0.06 -0.06 -0.051 -0.014
6-Jan-89 0.018 0.036 0.03 0.01 0.017
23-Jun-89 -0.033 0.03 0.074 0.022 0.044
13-Sep-89 -0.044 -0.02 0.039 0.02 -0.007
19-Oct-89 0.204 -0.052 -0.064 0.03 0.052
9-Nov-89 -0.082 -0.18 -0.103 -0.037 -0.077
2-Apr-90 0.273 0.448 0.199 0.024 0.281
17-Apr-90 -0.25 -0.395 -0.183 0.005 -0.199
30-May-90 -0.012 -0.033 -0.039 -0.015 0.117
29-Jun-90 0.14 0.266 0.208 0.118 0.117
27-Aug-90 0.344 0.345 0.256 0.242 0.322
17-Sep-91 0.003 -0.061 -0.07 -0.051 -0.071
5-Nov-01 5.215 16.603 15.548 6.914 24.835
6-Nov-01 8.997 17.63 11.388 9.901 25.214
8-Nov-01 22.379 15.946 4.184 17.622 19.91
9-Nov-01 26.397 17.47 -4.909 14.635 19.798
12-Nov-01 21.062 17.062 -8.153 -4.626 8.633
16-Nov-01 15.548 16.021 -3.795 -4.25 -6.105
282
Table – 6:3 Presents the Cumulative Abnormal Returns (CAR) of RIL and L&T
CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR

Announcement Date
(-11, 0) (-11, +11) (0, +11) (-1, +1) (-5, +5)
5-Aug-88 0.234 0.227 0.018 0.086 0.162
11-Oct-88 0.07 -0.036 -0.118 -0.009 -0.05
6-Jan-89 -0.028 -0.021 0.006 -0.021 0.004
23-Jun-89 -0.002 0.051 0.098 0.07 0.079
13-Sep-89 -0.062 -0.003 0.07 0.02 0.026
19-Oct-89 0.186 -0.129 -0.058 0.125 0.06
9-Nov-89 -0.137 -0.281 -0.152 -0.017 -0.045
2-Apr-90 0.404 0.606 0.205 0.003 0.104
17-Apr-90 -0.159 -0.174 -0.068 -0.003 -0.068
30-May-90 -0.003 0.011 -0.004 -0.005 0.139
29-Jun-90 0.525 0.735 0.43 0.331 0.363
27-Aug-90 0.599 0.482 0.102 0.192 0.275
17-Sep-91 -0.06 0.035 0.017 -0.099 -0.107
5-Nov-01 4.903 21.93 22.119 7.447 27.249
6-Nov-01 9.814 24.486 17.026 10.524 27.341
8-Nov-01 22.519 23.246 11.173 18.107 24.024
9-Nov-01 27.103 23.269 0.75 15.03 23.038
12-Nov-01 23.729 24.043 -3.298 -1.53 14.672
16-Nov-01 22.119 20.344 -2.918 -0.919 -1.407
283
Table – 6:4: Summary of Major Events in L&T Takeover
SR. Event
Event Narration41
No Date
1 05-Aug-88 BoB Fiscal acquired L&T shares from UTI, LIC and GIC (25 lac equity shares)
Equity shares of L&T acquired by BoB Fiscal were registered on RIL Account.
2 11-Oct-88
Nominees of Ambanis joined the Board of L&T
Trishna Investments, a Reliance subsidiary acquired L&T shares from BoB Fiscal (8
3 06-Jan-89
lac equity shares)
4 28-Apr-89 N M Desai resigned as Chairman of L&T
5 23-Jun-89 L&T board invested up-to Rs.76 crores in the equity shares of Reliance
Bob Fiscal authorised by L&T to purchase Reliance equity up-to Rs. 65 crores not
6 28-Jun-89 exceeding Rs.135 per shares (Bob Fiscal acquired 45lac shares of Reliance at
Rs.131)
7 25-Jul-89 L&T made the necessary application to the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI)
A write petition was filed against the sale of 39 lac shares of L&T by FIs to BoB
8 13-Sep-89
fiscal and Ambani's entry in L&T in Bombay High Court
9 19-Oct-89 Ambanis sold back 39 lac shares in L&T to FIs as gesture of goodwill
Financial institutions informed the court that they had bought back the shares from
10 09-Nov-89
Trishna Investments
11 30-Nov-89 EGM was called and the question about the Ambani control over L&T
LIC of India, major shareholder in L&T gave notice for holding an extraordinary
12 02-Apr-90 General meeting of shareholders for replacing the four directors on the board by
others
Dhirubhai Ambani step down as chairman of the L&T board and be replaced by D N
13 17-Apr-90
Ghosh former chairman of SBI. Mukesh Ambani no longer to be Vice – chairman
Guidelines for takeover of companies through substantial acquisitions of equity
14 30-May-90
shares
L&T board decided to prune the size of the debenture issues from Rs. 820 crores to
15 29-Jun-90
Rs.640 crores
Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to elect Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani as chairman
and Mr. Mukesh Ambani as managing director of L&T. They were well prepared for
16 26-Aug-91 a showdown at the requisitioned EGM on August 26, 1991, with a considerable
strength of substitutes of over 48% of the equity capital. Conversely, the congress
government was also believed to be in favour of RIL taking control of L&T.
The reconvened EGM, RIL dropped the proposals to appoint Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani
17 17-Sep-91
as chairman and Mr. Mukesh Ambani as managing director.
18 01-Oct-01 Holding of RIL Group in L&T was 4.38%
19 31-Oct-01 Holding of RIL Group in L&T was 4.80%
20 05-Nov-01 RIL Group acquired 1289000 shares of L&T, raised its holding to 5.32%
A: JM Morgan Stanley (JMMS) approached Grasim to acquired stake of RIL in
21 06-Nov-01
L&T.
B: RIL Group acquired 2154687 shares of L&T, raised its holding to 6.02%
RIL Group consolidated its holdings in L&T which were held in the name of RIL,
25 13-Nov-01
RIIHL, RCL and Shreenath Enterprises
RIL Group sold 2.5 crores of L&T shares at around 50% premium and deal was
26 16-Nov-01
finalised subject to approval of the respective Boards.
27 18-Nov-01 A: RIL Board Committee approved the deal
B:Grasim Board approved the deal
28 21-Nov-01 Total amount Rs. 766.5 crores for 2.5 crores shares paid to RIL by GIL for the deal.
29 22-Nov-01 M D Ambani and A D Ambani resigned from L&T Board
30 23-Nov-01 Mr. Kumar Mangalam Birla and Rajashree Birla appointed as directors of L&T
41
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4396582?uid=3738256&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47699100894837
accessed on 10th June 2012 and extracted from the SEBI Order dated 21 January 2004
284
Board of Directors of L&T under RIL
Before Ambanis Under Ambains After Ambanis
Name Name Name Designation
H. Holck- Larsen Chairman
Emeritus
N. M. Desai D. H. Ambani Chairman
M. D. Ambani Vice-Chairman
U. V. Rao U. V. Rao U. V. Rao MD and CEO
S. S. R. S. S. R. S. S. R. MD and
Subramanium Subramanium Subramanium President
Deputy MD
S. P. Kashyap S. P. Kashyap S. P. Kashyap Vice President

S. D.KulKarni S. D.KulKarni S. D.KulKarni Vice President
M. P. Wagh M. P. Wagh M. P. Wagh Vice President
A. M. Naik A. M. Naik A. M. Naik Vice President
A. Ramakrishna A. Ramakrishna A. Ramakrishna Vice President
M. Karnani M. Karnani M. Karnani Vice President
A. S. Gupta A. S. Gupta A. S. Gupta Nominee of FIs

S. S. Marathe S. S. Marathe S. S. Marathe Nominee of FIs
S. N. Shende S. N. Shende J. S. Salunke Nominee of FIs
N. G. Ram N. G. Ram Nominee of FIs
Nominee of FIs
Nominee of FIs
M. D. Ambani Director
B. L. Bhakta B. L. Bhakta Director
A. D. Ambani A. D. Ambani Director
A. G. Karkhanis A. G. Karkhanis A. G. Karkhanis Director
S. M. Palia S. M. Palia S. M. Palia Director
K. Ramanujam K. Ramanujam K. Ramanujam Director
D. V. Kapur D. V. Kapur D. V. Kapur Director
K. Henselar K. Henselar K. Henselar Director
A. Binder A. Binder A. Binder Director
* for part of the
Year
Source: Annual report of L&T Ltd, 1991-92 and 2001-02
285
Board of Directors of L&T under Birla
Under Birla FY 2011
Name Name Designation
Chairman & Managing

Mr. A.M. Naik Mr. A.M. Naik Director
Mr. A. Ramakrishna Deputy MD
Mr. B.G. Daga * Mr. Thomas Mathew T. Nominee of FIs

Mr. A. Ramamurthy Mr. N. Mohan Raj Nominee of FIs
Mr. S. Rajgopal * Mrs. Bhagyam Ramani Nominee of FIs
Mr. P.M.
Venkatasubramanian Mr. A. K. Jain Nominee of FIs
Mr. S.K. Kapur Nominee of FIs
Mr. M. Karnani*
Mr. J.P. Nayak Mr. J. P. Nayak* Executive Director
Mr. Y.M. Deosthalee Mr. Y. M. Deosthalee Executive Director
Mr. K. Venkataramanan Mr. K. Venkataramanan Executive Director
Mr. R. N. Mukhija * Mr. R. N. Mukhija* Executive Director
Mr. M. Karnani* Mr. K. V. Rangaswami Executive Director
Mr. V. K. Magapu Executive Director
Mr. M. V. Kotwal Executive Director
Mr. Ravi Uppal* Executive Director
Dr. D.V. Kapur Mr. S. Rajgopal Non-Executive Director
Mr. Kumar Mangalam
Birla Mr. S. N. Talwar Non-Executive Director
Mrs. Rajashree Birla * Mr. M. M. Chitale Non-Executive Director
Mr. H. Holck-Larsen Mr. Subodh Bhargava Non-Executive Director
Mr. S.S. Marathe Mr. J. S. Bindra Non-Executive Director
Mr. M.D. Ambani * Non-Executive Director
Mr. M.L. Bhakta Non-Executive Director
Mr. A.D. Ambani * Non-Executive Director
Dr. G. Armbruster Non-Executive Director
* for part of the Year

Non-Executive Directors as per Clause 49A of Listing Agreement pursuant to
Corporate Governance Guidelines, 2002
Source: Annual report of L&T Ltd, 2001-02 and 2011-2012
286
Changing patterns of Shareholding in L&T during the Takeover Attempts
Shareholders Shareholders as on
I II III IV
3/9/1988 10/10/1988 9/18/1990 8/1/1991
Financial Institutions 39.16% 32.24% 41.05% 40.24%
Nationalized Bank and Their 0.81% 7.75% - 0.40%

Subsidiaries
Corporate Bodies 3.47% 3.46% 21.80% 21.53%
Public and Others 56.09% 56.55% 37.15% 37.83%
Directors 0.47%
Sources: The stock Exchnage Official Directory, Bombay Stock Exchnage, Bombay
287
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.
Quarter
Scrip Code : 500325 Ending: December 2001
Date Begin : 01 Oct 2001 Date End : 31 Dec 2001
Ca tegory No.of Sha res Hel d % of Sha re Hol di ng
Promoter's Holding
Promoters
Indi a n Promoters 68621728 6.51
Persons acting in Concert 387542183 36.78
Sa ncha yi ta Merca nti l e Pvt Ltd 33774691 3.21
Rel i a nce Enterpri s es Ltd 31520000 2.99
Fl orenti ne Tra di ng Pvt Ltd 25905279 2.46
Vel oci ty Tra di ng Pvt td 24466251 2.32
Ma dhuba n Mercha ndi s e Pvt Ltd 24000000 2.28
Amur Tra di ngPvt Ltd 16000000 1.52
Tres ta Tra di ng Pvt Ltd 16000000 1.52
Ya ngs te Tra di ng Pvt Ltd 16000000 1.52
Sub Total 456163911 43.29
Non Promoter's Holding
Institutional Investors
Mutua l Funds a nd UTI 102516434 9.73
Uni t Trus t of Indi a 93622217 8.88
Ba nks ,Fi na nci a l Ins ti tuti ons ,Ins ura nce Compa ni es 45280898 4.3
Li fe Ins ura nce Corpora ti on of Indi a 26575428 2.52
FIIS 196061870 18.61
Ja nus Worl dwi de Fund 18847624 1.79
Emergi ng Ma rkets Growth Fund Inc 35608677 3.38
Sub Total 343859202 32.63
Others
Pri va te Corpora te Bodi es 21587116 2.05
Indi a n Publ i c 161363923 15.31
NRIs /OCBs 14493198 1.38
Any Other
GDR 56289677 5.34
Sub Total 253733914 24.08
Grand Total 1053757027 100
Notes:
Tota l Forei gn Sha rehol di ng i s a s fol l ows : -
Category No. of Shares % of Holding
FIIs 19,60,61,870 18.61
NRIs /OCBs 1,44,93,198 1.38
GDRs 5,62,89,677 5.34
Tota l 26,68,44,745 25.33
Rohi t C Sha h
Vi ce Pres i dent & Compa ny Secreta ry
http://www.bseindia.com/shareholding/searchresult.asp?scripcd=500325
288
LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD.
Quarter
Scrip Code : 500510 Ending: December 2001
Date Begin : 01 Oct 2001 Date End : 31 Dec 2001
Category No.of Shares Held % of Share Holding
Non Promoter's Holding
Institutional Investors
Mutual Funds and UTI 33409104 13.44
Unit Trust of India 27200977 10.94
Banks,Financial Institutions,Insurance Companies 59539171 23.94
Life Insurance Corporation of India 37937294 15.26

General Insurance Corporation of India 5479676 2.2
New India Assurance Company Ltd 5918996 2.38
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd 3245179 1.31
FIIS 21385512 8.6
Sub Total 114333787 45.98
Others
Private Corporate Bodies 35042667 14.09
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 25000000 10.05
Indian Public 76114036 30.61
NRIs/OCBs 1830883 0.74
Any Other
Others 21334833 8.58
Sub Total 134322419 54.02
Grand Total 248656206 100
Notes:
1. Others includes Shares underlying GDRs,Foreign Nationals & Foreign Companies out of which shares
underlying GDRs hold 20237886 equity shares representing 8.14% of the total capital.
2. The total non-resident holding of the company is 4,45,51,228 shares representing 17.92% comprising of
Foreign Companies, FIIs, Foreign Nationals, Non-residents & Shares underlying GDRs.
S V Subramanian
Company Secretary
289
Reliance L and T
Event Equity Abnormal Equity Abnormal
SR. Date CAR SR. Date CAR
No. Price Returns Price Returns
1 4-Jan-88 116
2 5-Jan-88 117 0 0
3 6-Jan-88 115 -0.025 -0.025
4 7-Jan-88 116 -0.01 -0.035
5 8-Jan-88 117 -0.017 -0.052
6 11-Jan-88 116 -0.008 -0.06
7 12-Jan-88 115 -0.003 -0.063
8 13-Jan-88 115 -0.006 -0.069
9 14-Jan-88 113 -0.002 -0.071
10 15-Jan-88 111 -0.007 -0.078
11 18-Jan-88 107 -0.009 -0.087
12 19-Jan-88 107 -0.012 -0.099
13 20-Jan-88 108 0.016 -0.083
14 21-Jan-88 107 0.008 -0.075
15 25-Jan-88 105 -0.001 -0.076
16 27-Jan-88 104 0.023 -0.053
17 29-Jan-88 103 -0.019 -0.072
18 1-Feb-88 103 0 -0.072
19 2-Feb-88 101 -0.016 -0.088
20 3-Feb-88 101 0.022 -0.066
21 4-Feb-88 99 -0.003 -0.069
22 5-Feb-88 99 -0.015 -0.084
23 8-Feb-88 104 0.067 -0.017
24 9-Feb-88 106 0.027 0.01
25 10-Feb-88 104 0.007 0.017
26 11-Feb-88 102 -0.002 0.015
27 12-Feb-88 102 0.002 0.017
28 15-Feb-88 100 -0.02 -0.003
29 17-Feb-88 99 -0.021 -0.024
30 18-Feb-88 98 0.006 -0.018
31 22-Feb-88 90 -0.034 -0.052
32 23-Feb-88 87 -0.031 -0.083
33 24-Feb-88 88.5 0.029 -0.054
34 25-Feb-88 85 -0.021 -0.075
35 26-Feb-88 83 -0.033 -0.108
36 29-Feb-88 96 0.142 0.034
37 1-Mar-88 95 0.005 0.039 37 1-Mar-88 82 0 0
38 2-Mar-88 87 -0.069 -0.03 38 2-Mar-88 81 -0.005 -0.005
39 3-Mar-88 86 -0.024 -0.054 39 3-Mar-88 80.5 -0.014 -0.019
40 7-Mar-88 86 0.023 -0.031 40 7-Mar-88 79.5 -0.001 -0.02
41 8-Mar-88 84 -0.031 -0.062 41 8-Mar-88 79.5 -0.005 -0.025
42 9-Mar-88 91 0.065 0.003 42 9-Mar-88 80.6 0.003 -0.022
43 11-Mar-88 91 -0.041 -0.038 43 11-Mar-88 88 0.068 0.046
44 14-Mar-88 89 0.005 -0.033 44 14-Mar-88 86.5 -0.003 0.043
45 16-Mar-88 87 -0.019 -0.052 45 16-Mar-88 85 -0.016 0.027
46 17-Mar-88 85 -0.011 -0.063 46 17-Mar-88 85 0.006 0.033
47 21-Mar-88 84 0.025 -0.038 47 21-Mar-88 83 -0.004 0.029
48 22-Mar-88 83 -0.001 -0.039 48 22-Mar-88 82.5 -0.001 0.028
49 23-Mar-88 83 0.005 -0.034 49 23-Mar-88 82 -0.004 0.024
50 24-Mar-88 82 0.014 -0.02 50 24-Mar-88 80 -0.011 0.013
51 25-Mar-88 79 -0.026 -0.046 51 25-Mar-88 81 0.018 0.031
52 28-Mar-88 74 -0.52 -0.566 52 28-Mar-88 80 -0.007 0.024
53 29-Mar-88 76 0.005 -0.561 53 29-Mar-88 81 0 0.024
54 30-Mar-88 78 0.03 -0.531 54 30-Mar-88 82 0.014 0.038
55 4-Apr-88 79 0.02 -0.511 55 4-Apr-88 79 -0.033 0.005
56 5-Apr-88 85 0.053 -0.458 56 5-Apr-88 78.5 -0.02 -0.015
57 6-Apr-88 87 0.007 -0.451 57 6-Apr-88 80.5 0.015 -1.0408E-17
58 7-Apr-88 89 0.022 -0.429 58 7-Apr-88 78.5 -0.026 -0.026
59 8-Apr-88 85 -0.024 -0.453 59 8-Apr-88 77.5 -0.002 -0.028
60 11-Apr-88 82 -0.029 -0.482 60 11-Apr-88 77 -0.004 -0.032
290
Reliance L and T
61 12-Apr-88 80 -0.023 -0.505 61 12-Apr-88 78 0.013 -0.019
62 13-Apr-88 81 0.014 -0.491 62 13-Apr-88 80 0.025 0.006
63 15-Apr-88 81 0.017 -0.474 63 15-Apr-88 80.5 0.015 0.021
64 19-Apr-88 88 0.067 -0.407 64 19-Apr-88 79 -0.03 -0.009
65 20-Apr-88 96 0.063 -0.344 65 20-Apr-88 81.75 0.018 0.009
66 21-Apr-88 106 0.089 -0.255 66 21-Apr-88 83 0.006 0.015
67 25-Apr-88 114 0.015 -0.24 67 25-Apr-88 84.5 -0.017 -0.002
68 26-Apr-88 114 0.023 -0.217 68 26-Apr-88 87.5 0.048 0.046
69 27-Apr-88 117.5 -0.012 -0.229 69 27-Apr-88 88 -0.019 0.027
70 28-Apr-88 123 0.027 -0.202 70 28-Apr-88 89.5 0.005 0.032
71 29-Apr-88 118 -0.03 -0.232 71 29-Apr-88 89 0 0.032
72 2-May-88 123.5 0.023 -0.209 72 2-May-88 87.5 -0.031 0.001
73 3-May-88 124 0.032 -0.177 73 3-May-88 87 0.009 0.01
74 4-May-88 122 -0.016 -0.193 74 4-May-88 85.5 -0.018 -0.008
75 5-May-88 122 0.009 -0.184 75 5-May-88 85 -0.002 -0.01
76 6-May-88 128 0.024 -0.16 76 6-May-88 86.5 0.003 -0.007
77 10-May-88 139 0.058 -0.102 77 10-May-88 88 0 -0.007
78 11-May-88 143 0.023 -0.079 78 11-May-88 87 -0.015 -0.022
79 12-May-88 149 0.019 -0.06 79 12-May-88 88 -0.002 -0.024
80 13-May-88 146.5 0.005 -0.055 80 13-May-88 87 0 -0.024
81 16-May-88 147.5 -0.008 -0.063 81 16-May-88 91.5 0.042 0.018
82 17-May-88 144 -0.007 -0.07 82 17-May-88 91.5 0.009 0.027
83 19-May-88 154 0.037 -0.033 83 19-May-88 94 0.008 0.035
84 20-May-88 169 0.062 0.029 84 20-May-88 97 0.011 0.046
85 23-May-88 169 0.01 0.039 85 23-May-88 94 0.026 0.072
86 24-May-88 165 0.007 0.046 86 24-May-88 92 0.005 0.077
87 25-May-88 175 0.026 0.072 87 25-May-88 92.5 -0.015 0.062
88 26-May-88 184 0.023 0.095 88 26-May-88 93.5 -0.006 0.056
89 27-May-88 186 0.012 0.107 89 27-May-88 94 0.005 0.061
90 30-May-88 195 0.015 0.122 90 30-May-88 94 -0.02 0.041
91 31-May-88 195 -0.005 0.117 91 31-May-88 94 -0.004 0.037
92 1-Jun-88 192.5 0.007 0.124 92 1-Jun-88 93.50. 0.005 0.042
93 2-Jun-88 196 -0.009 0.115 93 2-Jun-88 94 -0.011 0.031
94 3-Jun-88 216 0.042 0.157 94 3-Jun-88 99.5 0.024 0.055
95 8-Jun-88 221 0.008 0.165 95 8-Jun-88 101.5 0.011 0.066
96 9-Jun-88 218.5 0.02 0.185 96 9-Jun-88 100 0.002 0.068
97 10-Jun-88 217 0.021 0.206 97 10-Jun-88 96.5 -0.02 0.048
98 13-Jun-88 231 0.038 0.244 98 13-Jun-88 97 -0.011 0.037
99 14-Jun-88 229 0.024 0.268 99 14-Jun-88 97 0.017 0.054
100 15-Jun-88 219 -0.032 0.236 100 15-Jun-88 95 -0.015 0.039
101 16-Jun-88 222 0.003 0.239 101 16-Jun-88 96 0.003 0.042
102 17-Jun-88 223 0.029 0.268 102 17-Jun-88 96 0.013 0.055
103 20-Jun-88 215 -0.032 0.236 103 20-Jun-88 94 -0.019 0.036
104 21-Jun-88 204 -0.014 0.222 104 21-Jun-88 93 0.01 0.046
105 22-Jun-88 203 -0.011 0.211 105 22-Jun-88 92 -0.015 0.031
106 23-Jun-88 213 0.045 0.256 106 23-Jun-88 93.5 0.013 0.044
107 24-Jun-88 207 -0.002 0.254 107 24-Jun-88 93 0.008 0.052
108 28-Jun-88 199 -0.033 0.221 108 28-Jun-88 91 -0.019 0.033
109 29-Jun-88 200 -0.01 0.211 109 29-Jun-88 94 0.024 0.057
110 1-Jul-88 204 0.036 0.247 110 1-Jul-88 94 0.008 0.065
111 4-Jul-88 196 -0.022 0.225 111 4-Jul-88 95 0.019 0.084
112 5-Jul-88 190.5 0.006 0.231 112 5-Jul-88 94 0.008 0.092
113 6-Jul-88 183 -0.029 0.202 113 6-Jul-88 93.5 0 0.092
114 7-Jul-88 183 0.006 0.208 114 7-Jul-88 94.5 0.013 0.105
115 8-Jul-88 192 0.021 0.229 115 8-Jul-88 95 -0.012 0.093
116 11-Jul-88 201 0.026 0.255 116 11-Jul-88 97 0.009 0.102
117 12-Jul-88 209 0.025 0.28 117 12-Jul-88 99 0.012 0.114
118 13-Jul-88 207 0.004 0.284 118 13-Jul-88 97.5 -0.008 0.106
119 14-Jul-88 199.5 -0.021 0.263 119 14-Jul-88 96.5 -0.002 0.104
120 15-Jul-88 204.5 0.03 0.293 120 15-Jul-88 96 -0.003 0.101
291
Reliance L and T
121 18-Jul-88 213 0.007 0.3 121 18-Jul-88 98.5 0.006 0.107
122 19-Jul-88 216 -0.006 0.294 122 19-Jul-88 100 0.003 0.11
123 27-Jul-88 216 0.01 0.304 123 27-Jul-88 106 0.065 0.175
124 28-Jul-88 209 0.025 0.329 124 28-Jul-88 103.5 -0.015 0.16
125 29-Jul-88 208 -0.014 0.315 125 29-Jul-88 105 0.008 0.168
126 1-Aug-88 210 0.002 0.317 126 1-Aug-88 109 0.033 0.201
127 2-Aug-88 209 0.009 0.326 127 2-Aug-88 112.5 0.039 0.24
128 3-Aug-88 203 -0.016 0.31 128 3-Aug-88 112 0.002 0.242
129 4-Aug-88 204 0.007 0.317 129 4-Aug-88 118 0.054 0.296
130 1 5-Aug-88 204 -0.005 0.312 130 5-Aug-88 122 0.03 0.326
131 8-Aug-88 202.5 0.005 0.317 131 8-Aug-88 119 -0.018 0.308
132 9-Aug-88 204 0.01 0.327 132 9-Aug-88 114.5 -0.037 0.271
133 10-Aug-88 207 0.019 0.346 133 10-Aug-88 117.5 0.028 0.299
134 12-Aug-88 202 -0.007 0.339 134 12-Aug-88 116.5 0 0.299
135 16-Aug-88 201 0.008 0.347 135 16-Aug-88 114 -0.015 0.284
136 17-Aug-88 200 -0.013 0.334 136 17-Aug-88 115 0.003 0.287
137 19-Aug-88 202 0.007 0.341 137 19-Aug-88 116.5 0.01 0.297
138 22-Aug-88 201.5 0 0.341 138 22-Aug-88 116.5 0 0.297
139 23-Aug-88 201 0.01 0.351 139 23-Aug-88 112 -0.032 0.265
140 25-Aug-88 203 0.008 0.359 140 25-Aug-88 113 0.007 0.272
141 26-Aug-88 199 -0.002 0.357 141 26-Aug-88 108 -0.035 0.237
142 29-Aug-88 196 0 0.357 142 29-Aug-88 101 0.057 0.294
143 30-Aug-88 194 -0.01 0.347 143 30-Aug-88 102 0.009 0.303
144 31-Aug-88 193 -0.016 0.331 144 31-Aug-88 105.5 0.028 0.331
145 1-Sep-88 204 0.028 0.359 145 1-Sep-88 108 0.007 0.338
146 2-Sep-88 206 0.021 0.38 146 2-Sep-88 108 0.005 0.343
147 5-Sep-88 205 -0.028 0.352 147 5-Sep-88 110.5 0.009 0.352
148 6-Sep-88 205 0.024 0.376 148 6-Sep-88 112.5 0.03 0.382
149 7-Sep-88 196 -0.044 0.332 149 7-Sep-88 116 0.03 0.412
150 8-Sep-88 200 0.005 0.337 150 8-Sep-88 123 0.051 0.463
151 9-Sep-88 191 -0.038 0.299 151 9-Sep-88 127 0.036 0.499
152 13-Sep-88 189 -0.01 0.289 152 13-Sep-88 124.5 -0.021 0.478
153 14-Sep-88 189 -0.005 0.284 153 14-Sep-88 126.25 0.01 0.488
154 19-Sep-88 196 0.008 0.292 154 19-Sep-88 127.5 -0.007 0.481
155 20-Sep-88 196 0.018 0.31 155 20-Sep-88 125.5 -0.007 0.474
156 21-Sep-88 197 -0.003 0.307 156 21-Sep-88 126 -0.002 0.472
157 22-Sep-86 202 0.022 0.329 157 22-Sep-86 126 -0.003 0.469
158 23-Sep-88 200 -0.002 0.327 158 23-Sep-88 125 -0.004 0.465
159 30-Sep-88 199 -0.034 0.293 159 30-Sep-88 127 -0.001 0.464
160 03-0ct-88 194 -0.046 0.247 160 03-0ct-88 138.5 0.078 0.542
161 04-0ct-88 198 0.021 0.268 161 04-0ct-88 137.5 -0.008 0.534
162 5-Oct-88 194.5 -0.028 0.24 162 5-Oct-88 140.5 0.015 0.549
163 6-Oct-88 194 0.001 0.241 163 6-Oct-88 144.5 0.03 0.579
164 7-Oct-88 202 0.033 0.274 164 7-Oct-88 148.5 0.022 0.601
165 10-Oct-88 208 0.015 0.289 165 10-Oct-88 147.5 -0.016 0.585
166 2 11-Oct-88 200 0.007 0.296 166 11-Oct-88 141 -0.019 0.566
167 12-Oct-88 198 0.02 0.316 167 12-Oct-88 136.5 -0.016 0.55
168 13-Oct-88 198 0.019 0.335 168 13-Oct-88 134.5 -0.005 0.545
169 14-Oct-88 170 -0.131 0.204 169 14-Oct-88 132.5 -0.01 0.535
170 18-Oct-88 179 0.009 0.213 170 18-Oct-88 135 -0.007 0.528
171 21-Oct-88 190 0.018 0.231 171 21-Oct-88 138 -0.003 0.525
172 25-Oct-88 195 0.035 0.266 172 25-Oct-88 140 0.019 0.544
173 26-Oct-88 187 -0.028 0.238 173 26-Oct-88 134 -0.036 0.508
174 27-Oct-88 181 0.002 0.24 174 27-Oct-88 132.5 0.007 0.515
175 28-0ct-88 177 -0.011 0.229 175 28-0ct-88 130 -0.014 0.501
176 31-Oct-88 170 0.001 0.23 176 31-Oct-88 126 -0.009 0.492
177 2-Nov-88 176 -0.014 0.216 177 2-Nov-88 134.5 0.039 0.531
178 3-Nov-88 167.5 -0.022 0.194 178 3-Nov-88 130 -0.02 0.511
179 4-Nov-88 180 0.028 0.222 179 4-Nov-88 134 0.003 0.514
180 9-Nov-88 183 0.005 0.227 180 9-Nov-88 134 -0.007 0.507
292
Reliance L and T
181 15-Nov-88 175 -0.035 0.192 181 15-Nov-88 130 -0.026 0.481
182 16-Nov-88 175 0 0.192 182 16-Nov-88 130 -0.001 0.48
183 17-Nov-88 176 0.004 0.196 183 17-Nov-88 132 0.014 0.494
184 18-Nov-88 175 -0.014 0.182 184 18-Nov-88 132.5 -0.002 0.492
185 21-Nov-88 175 0.005 0.187 185 21-Nov-88 135 0.021 0.513
186 24-Nov-88 174 0.02 0.207 186 24-Nov-88 135 0.014 0.527
187 28-Nov-88 169 -0.009 0.198 187 28-Nov-88 130.5 -0.023 0.504
188 29-Nov-88 163 -0.044 0.154 188 29-Nov-88 134 0.021 0.525
189 30-Nou-88 168 0.025 0.179 189 30-Nou-88 135 0.004 0.529
190 2-Dec-88 164 -0.024 0.155 190 2-Dec-88 134 -0.008 0.521
191 5-Dec-88 158 -0.015 0.14 191 5-Dec-88 131.5 -0.007 0.514
192 6-Dec-88 159 0.03 0.17 192 6-Dec-88 131.5 0.012 0.526
193 7-Dec-88 154 -0.007 0.163 193 7-Dec-88 128 -0.014 0.512
194 O9-0ec-88 155 0.01 0.173 194 O9-0ec-88 128.5 0.005 0.517
195 13-Dec-88 158.5 0.039 0.212 195 13-Dec-88 131.5 0.031 0.548
196 14-Dec-88 164 -0.01 0.202 196 14-Dec-88 133.5 -0.011 0.537
197 15-0ec-88 170 0.052 0.254 197 15-0ec-88 137.5 0.038 0.575
198 16-Dec-88 162.5 -0.005 0.249 198 16-Dec-88 131 -0.026 0.549
199 19-Dec-88 162.52 0.023 0.272 199 19-Dec-88 131 0.012 0.561
200 20-Dec-88 160 -0.026 0.246 200 20-Dec-88 128 -0.03 0.531
201 21-Dec-88 163 0.021 0.267 201 21-Dec-88 129 0.008 0.539
202 22-Dec-88 158 -0.019 0.248 202 22-Dec-88 126 -0.017 0.522
203 23-Dec-88 155 -0.023 0.225 203 23-Dec-88 126.5 0.001 0.523
204 2-Jan-89 155 0.016 0.241 204 2-Jan-89 128 0.02 0.543
205 4-Jan-89 144.5 -0.031 0.21 205 4-Jan-89 124 -0.012 0.531
206 5-Jan-89 138 -0.018 0.192 206 5-Jan-89 122 -0.002 0.529
207 3 6-Jan-89 135 -0.013 0.179 207 6-Jan-89 123 0.012 0.541
208 9-Jan-89 141.5 -0.01 0.169 208 9-Jan-89 127 -0.001 0.54
209 10-Jan-89 141.5 0 0.169 209 10-Jan-89 127 -0.001 0.539
210 11-Jan-89 146 0.043 0.212 210 11-Jan-89 126.5 0.001 0.54
211 12-Jan-89 142 -0.016 0.196 211 12-Jan-89 125 -0.007 0.533
212 13-Jan-89 136 -0.021 0.175 212 13-Jan-89 123.75 0.001 0.534
213 16-Jan-89 134 -0.015 0.16 213 16-Jan-89 123.5 -0.003 0.531
214 17-Jan-89 135 0.008 0.168 214 17-Jan-89 127 0.028 0.559
215 18-Jan-89 134.5 0.01 0.178 215 18-Jan-89 128 0.015 0.574
216 20-Jan-89 127 -0.039 0.139 216 20-Jan-89 125 -0.015 0.559
217 21-Jan-89 124 -0.015 0.124 217 21-Jan-89 130 0.044 0.603
218 23-Jan-89 121 -0.014 0.11 218 23-Jan-89 116.5 -0.099 0.504
219 25-Jan-89 129 0.01 0.12 219 25-Jan-89 118 -0.019 0.485
220 27-Jan-89 135 0.038 0.158 220 27-Jan-89 120 0.011 0.496
221 30-Jan-89 142.5 0.046 0.204 221 30-Jan-89 118.5 -0.019 0.477
222 31-Jan-89 146 0.021 0.225 222 31-Jan-89 117.5 -0.011 0.466
223 3-Feb-89 145 0.02 0.245 223 3-Feb-89 117 0.01 0.476
224 6-Feb-89 152 0.018 0.263 224 6-Feb-89 117 -0.018 0.458
225 7-Feb-89 152.5 0.017 0.28 225 7-Feb-89 117 0.007 0.465
226 8-Feb-89 144.5 -0.032 0.248 226 8-Feb-89 115 -0.007 0.458
227 9-Feb-89 144 -0.002 0.246 227 9-Feb-89 115.5 0.004 0.462
228 10-Feb-89 144 0.005 0.251 228 10-Feb-89 115.5 0.002 0.464
229 13-Feb-89 145 0.035 0.286 229 13-Feb-89 115 0.01 0.474
230 14-Feb-89 141.5 -0.028 0.258 230 14-Feb-89 114 -0.012 0.462
231 15-Feb-89 141.5 0.015 0.273 231 15-Feb-89 112.5 -0.005 0.457
232 16-Feb-89 137 -0.01 0.263 232 16-Feb-89 108.5 -0.024 0.433
233 17-Feb-89 137.5 -0.002 0.261 233 17-Feb-89 102.1 -0.063 0.37
234 20-Feb-89 139 -0.009 0.252 234 20-Feb-89 102 -0.013 0.357
235 21-Feb-89 141.5 0.023 0.275 235 21-Feb-89 103.5 0.017 0.374
236 22-Feb-89 138 -0.02 0.255 236 22-Feb-89 101.5 -0.018 0.356
237 23-Feb-89 140 0.016 0.271 237 23-Feb-89 103 0.015 0.371
238 24-Feb-89 141 -0.006 0.265 238 24-Feb-89 104 0.001 0.372
239 27-Feb-89 148.5 0.066 0.331 239 27-Feb-89 105 0.016 0.388
240 28-Feb-89 144 -0.006 0.325 240 28-Feb-89 102 -0.016 0.372
293
Reliance L and T
241 1-Mar-89 129 -0.066 0.259 241 1-Mar-89 99.5 -0.004 0.368
242 2-Mar-89 132 -0.009 0.25 242 2-Mar-89 99 -0.024 0.344
243 3-Mar-89 134 0.017 0.267 243 3-Mar-89 99 0 0.344
244 7-Mar-89 131 -0.046 0.221 244 7-Mar-89 99 -0.014 0.33
245 8-Mar-89 129 -0.027 0.194 245 8-Mar-89 99.5 -0.002 0.328
246 9-Mar-89 130 0.016 0.21 246 9-Mar-89 99.5 0.004 0.332
247 10-Mar-89 125 -0.046 0.164 247 10-Mar-89 97.5 -0.025 0.307
248 13-Mar-89 125 0.02 0.184 248 13-Mar-89 96 -0.005 0.302
249 14-Mar-89 122.5 -0.001 0.183 249 14-Mar-89 92 -0.032 0.27
250 15-Mar-89 125 0.013 0.196 250 15-Mar-89 95 0.028 0.298
251 16-Mar-89 127.5 0.023 0.219 251 16-Mar-89 93.5 -0.015 0.283
252 17-Mar-89 127 0.004 0.223 252 17-Mar-89 92.5 -0.007 0.276
253 20-Mar-89 124 -0.008 0.215 253 20-Mar-89 92 0.003 0.279
254 21-Mar-89 117 -0.04 0.175 254 21-Mar-89 89 -0.024 0.255
255 23-Mar-89 120.5 -0.007 0.168 255 23-Mar-89 91 0.001 0.256
256 27-Mar-89 124 0.013 0.181 256 27-Mar-89 93.5 0.018 0.274
257 28-Nar-89 128 0.033 0.214 257 28-Nar-89 95.5 0.021 0.295
258 29-Mar-89 137 0.054 0.268 258 29-Mar-89 101 0.048 0.343
259 30-Mar-89 143 0.036 0.304 259 30-Mar-89 104 0.024 0.367
260 31-Mar-89 141.5 -0.011 0.293 260 31-Mar-89 103 -0.011 0.356
261 3-Apr-89 144.5 0.008 0.301 261 3-Apr-89 103.5 -0.003 0.353
262 4-Apr-89 142 -0.005 0.296 262 4-Apr-89 103.5 0.006 0.359
263 7-Apr-89 149 0.037 0.333 263 7-Apr-89 99.5 -0.046 0.313
264 10-Apr-89 158 0.026 0.359 264 10-Apr-89 107 0.055 0.368
265 11-Apr-89 154.5 -0.021 0.338 265 11-Apr-89 109 0.019 0.387
266 12-Apr-89 148 -0.009 0.329 266 12-Apr-89 105 -0.019 0.368
267 17-Apr-89 153.5 0.024 0.353 267 17-Apr-89 104.5 -0.013 0.355
268 19-Apr-89 152 -0.014 0.339 268 19-Apr-89 103 -0.018 0.337
269 20-Apr-89 154.5 0.004 0.343 269 20-Apr-89 101.5 -0.022 0.315
270 21-Apr-89 155 -0.033 0.31 270 21-Apr-89 101 -0.026 0.289
271 25-Apr-89 147 -0.01 0.3 271 25-Apr-89 103 0.042 0.331
272 26-Apr-89 143 -0.053 0.247 272 26-Apr-89 103 -0.016 0.315
273 27-Apr-89 140 -0.002 0.245 273 27-Apr-89 103.5 0.015 0.33
274 28-Apr-89 138 -0.025 0.22 274 28-Apr-89 104 -0.002 0.328
275 2-May-89 134.5 0.021 0.241 275 2-May-89 103 0.016 0.344
276 3-May-89 132 -0.011 0.23 276 3-May-89 99 -0.036 0.308
277 4-May-89 131 -0.01 0.22 277 4-May-89 97 -0.022 0.286
278 5-May-89 128.5 -0.003 0.217 278 5-May-89 93.5 -0.028 0.258
279 10-May-89 124.5 -0.006 0.211 279 10-May-89 92 -0.003 0.255
280 11-May-89 124.5 0.034 0.245 280 11-May-89 90 -0.004 0.251
281 12-May-89 124.5 -0.018 0.227 281 12-May-89 91 0 0.251
282 15-May-89 126 0.003 0.23 282 15-May-89 92.5 0.01 0.261
.
283 16-May-89 129 0.028 0.258 283 16-May-89 91.50 -0.009 0.252
284 17-May-89 126 0.012 0.27 284 17-May-89 91 0.014 0.266
285 18-May-89 123 -0.025 0.245 285 18-May-89 86 -0.056 0.21
286 19-May-89 124.5 0.032 0.277 286 19-May-89 87.5 0.028 0.238
287 22-May-89 119 -0.036 0.241 287 22-May-89 85 -0.025 0.213
288 23-May-89 123.5 0.024 0.265 288 23-May-89 85.5 -0.003 0.21
289 24-May-89 124 0.009 0.274 289 24-May-89 87.5 0.026 0.236
290 26-May-89 121 -0.012 0.262 290 26-May-89 88 0.012 0.248
291 29-May-89 118 0.003 0.265 291 29-May-89 89 0.026 0.274
292 30-May-89 117 0 0.265 292 30-May-89 84.5 -0.046 0.228
293 31-May-89 114 -0.02 0.245 293 31-May-89 82.5 -0.021 0.207
294 1-Jun-89 117 0.017 0.262 294 1-Jun-89 84 0.012 0.219
295 2-Jun-89 122 0.031 0.293 295 2-Jun-89 87 0.028 0.247
296 5-Jun-89 126 0.008 0.301 296 5-Jun-89 87.5 -0.009 0.238
297 6-Jun-89 125 -0.001 0.3 297 6-Jun-89 67 -0.003 0.235
298 7-Jun-89 124 -0.008 0.292 298 7-Jun-89 86.5 -0.007 0.228
299 8-Jun-89 124 0.005 0.297 299 8-Jun-89 87 0.008 0.236
300 9-Jun-89 124 0.006 0.303 300 9-Jun-89 88 0.014 0.25
294
Reliance L and T
301 12-Jun-89 122 -0.015 0.288 301 12-Jun-89 88 0 0.25
302 13-Jun-89 123.5 0.018 0.306 302 13-Jun-89 86.5 -0.015 0.235
303 14-Jun-89 120 -0.01 0.296 303 14-Jun-89 85 -0.008 0.227
304 16-Jun-89 124 0.012 0.308 304 16-Jun-89 85 -0.013 0.214
305 19-Jun-89 127 0.025 0.333 305 19-Jun-89 86.5 0.017 0.231
306 20-Jun-89 124 -0.027 0.306 306 20-Jun-89 84 -0.031 0.2
307 21-Jun-89 125 -0.02 0.286 307 21-Jun-89 85 -0.005 0.195
308 22-Jun-89 128 0.014 0.3 308 22-Jun-89 86.5 0.011 0.206
309 4 23-Jun-89 133.5 0.034 0.334 309 23-Jun-89 88 0.011 0.217
310 26-Jun-89 131 0.002 0.336 310 26-Jun-89 90 0.034 0.251
311 27-Jun-89 127 -0.031 0.305 311 27-Jun-89 91 0.01 0.261
312 28-Jun-89 133.5 0.038 0.343 312 28-Jun-89 91.5 -0.003 0.258
313 29-Jun-89 135.5 0.015 0.358 313 29-Jun-89 93 0.016 0.274
314 30-Jun-89 134.5 -0.013 0.345 314 30-Jun-89 93.9 0.006 0.28
315 4-Jul-89 133 -0.021 0.324 315 4-Jul-89 94.5 0 0.28
316 5-Jul-89 135 0.013 0.337 316 5-Jul-89 97.5 0.03 0.31
317 06-Jut-89 135 0.015 0.352 317 06-Jut-89 101.5 0.049 0.359
318 7-Jul-89 131 -0.016 0.336 318 7-Jul-89 97.5 -0.032 0.327
319 10-Jul-89 128 0.009 0.345 319 10-Jul-89 97 0.012 0.339
320 11-Jul-89 125 -0.006 0.339 320 11-Jul-89 93.5 -0.027 0.312
321 12-Jul-89 126 0.001 0.34 321 12-Jul-89 93.5 -0.005 0.307
322 13-Jul-89 124 -0.006 0.334 322 13-Jul-89 93 -0.001 0.306
323 17-Jul-89 122 0.006 0.34 323 17-Jul-89 93.5 0.017 0.323
324 19-Jul-89 124.5 0.015 0.355 324 19-Jul-89 95 0.012 0.335
325 20-Jul-89 124 -0.002 0.353 325 20-Jul-89 100 0.053 0.388
326 21-Jul-89 123 0.017 0.37 326 21-Jul-89 101.5 0.028 0.416
327 25-Jul-89 115.5 -0.048 0.322 327 25-Jul-89 101.5 0.007 0.423
328 26-Jul-89 119 0.020 0.342 328 26-Jul-89 105.5 0.033 0.456
329 27-Jul-89 113 -0.014 0.328 329 27-Jul-89 107.5 0.038 0.494
330 28-Jul-89 108.5 -0.026 0.302 330 28-Jul-89 108 0.012 0.506
331 1-Aug-89 111 0.006 0.308 331 1-Aug-89 118.5 0.087 0.593
332 2-Aug-89 106.5 -0.016 0.292 332 2-Aug-89 116.5 -0.004 0.589
333 3-Aug-89 108.5 0.022 0.314 333 3-Aug-89 115 -0.012 0.577
334 4-Aug-89 114 0.050 0.364 334 4-Aug-89 115.5 0.003 0.58
335 8-Aug-89 112.5 0.012 0.376 335 8-Aug-89 110.5 -0.03 0.55
336 9-Aug-89 111 -0.024 0.352 336 9-Aug-89 110.5 -0.007 0.543
337 10-Aug-89 114 0.003 0.355 337 10-Aug-89 109.5 -0.023 0.52
338 14-Aug-89 115 0.006 0.361 338 14-Aug-89 109 -0.007 0.513
339 17-Aug-89 113.5 0.005 0.366 339 17-Aug-89 110 0.019 0.532
340 18-Aug-89 112 0.001 0.367 340 18-Aug-89 108 -0.011 0.521
341 22-Aug-89 106 -0.032 0.335 341 22-Aug-89 105 -0.016 0.505
342 23-Aug-89 106.5 0.007 0.342 342 23-Aug-89 106 0.01 0.515
343 28-Aug-89 107 0.002 0.344 343 28-Aug-89 104 -0.021 0.494
344 29-Aug-89 109 0.014 0.358 344 29-Aug-89 104 -0.003 0.491
345 31-Aug-89 109 -0.019 0.339 345 31-Aug-89 122 0.162 0.653
346 1-Sep-89 107 -0.008 0.331 346 1-Sep-89 105 -0.134 0.519
347 6-Sep-89 107 0.002 0.333 347 6-Sep-89 105 0 0.519
348 7-Sep-89 104.5 -0.025 0.308 348 7-Sep-89 103 -0.021 0.498
349 8-Sep-89 103 0.009 0.317 349 8-Sep-89 102 0.002 0.5
350 11-Sep-89 101.5 0.002 0.319 350 11-Sep-89 98 -0.031 0.469
351 12-Sep-89 101 -0.002 0.317 351 12-Sep-89 97 -0.009 0.46
352 5 13-Sep-89 100.5 -0.004 0.313 352 13-Sep-89 98.5 0.015 0.475
353 14-Sep-89 103 0.006 0.319 353 14-Sep-89 101 0.014 0.489
354 15-Sep-89 107 0.047 0.366 354 15-Sep-89 102 0.014 0.503
355 18-Sep-89 104.5 -0.025 0.341 355 18-Sep-89 101 -0.012 0.491
356 19-Sep-89 105.5 0.013 0.354 356 19-Sep-89 101 0.001 0.492
357 20-Sep-89 102.5 --0.020 0.334 357 20-Sep-89 101.5 0.009 0.501
358 21-Sep-89 101 -0.009 0.325 358 21-Sep-89 101 -0.003 0.498
359 22-Sep-89 103 0.023 0.348 359 22-Sep-89 101 0.001 0.499
360 25-Sep-89 102.5 0.005 0.353 360 25-Sep-89 101 0.005 0.504
295
Reliance L and T
361 26-Sep-89 102.5 -0.003 0.35 361 26-Sep-89 100 -0.012 0.492
362 27-Sep-89 102.5 0.002 0.352 362 27-Sep-89 101 0.01 0.502
363 28-Sep-89 103 -0.002 0.35 363 28-Sep-89 100.5 -0.01 0.492
364 29-Sep-29 110 0.050 0.4 364 29-Sep-29 102 0.004 0.496
365 3-Oct-89 108 -0.002 0.398 365 3-Oct-89 101 -0.002 0.494
366 4-Oct-89 106 0.002 0.4 366 4-Oct-89 101.25 0.013 0.507
367 5-Oct-89 104 -0.003 0.397 367 5-Oct-89 101 0.006 0.513
368 6-Oct-89 102.5 -0.01 0.387 368 6-Oct-89 100 -0.009 0.504
369 9-Oct-89 100.5 -0.017 0.37 369 9-Oct-89 100.5 0.006 0.51
370 11-Oct-89 96.5 -0.036 0.334 370 11-Oct-89 100 -0.004 0.506
371 12-Oct-89 96 -0.001 0.333 371 12-Oct-89 100 0.001 0.507
372 13-Oct-89 95.5 -0.003 0.33 372 13-Oct-89 100 0.001 0.508
373 16-Oct-89 94 0.003 0.333 373 16-Oct-89 99 -0.001 0.507
374 17-Oct-89 89 -0.022 0.311 374 17-Oct-89 100 0.027 0.534
375 18-Oct-89 93 -0.007 0.304 375 18-Oct-89 101.25 -0.018 0.516
376 6 19-Oct-89 97 0.065 0.369 376 19-Oct-89 119.5 0.192 0.708
377 20-Oct-89 103 0.037 0.406 377 20-Oct-89 104 -0.144 0.564
378 23-Oct-89 99 -0.04 0.366 378 23-Oct-89 112 0.075 0.639
379 24-Oct-89 95 -0.035 0.331 379 24-Oct-89 102.5 -0.082 0.557
380 24-Oct-89 95 0.007 0.338 380 24-Oct-89 102.5 0.003 0.56
381 25-Oct-89 95 -0.019 0.319 381 25-Oct-89 92.5 -0.109 0.451
382 26-Oct-89 97 0.02 0.339 382 26-Oct-89 95.5 0.031 0.482
383 29-Oct-89 98 0.014 0.353 383 29-Oct-89 97 0.017 0.499
384 31-Oct-89 92 -0.043 0.31 384 31-Oct-89 91.5 -0.047 0.452
385 1-Nov-89 92.5 0.019 0.329 385 1-Nov-89 91 0.001 0.453
386 2-Nov-89 90 -0.025 0.304 386 2-Nov-89 90 -0.011 0.442
387 3-Nov-89 88.5 -0.01 0.294 387 3-Nov-89 90 0.003 0.445
388 6-Nov-89 88 0.005 0.299 388 6-Nov-89 89 -0.006 0.439
389 7-Nov-89 85 -0.017 0.282 389 7-Nov-89 86 -0.025 0.414
390 8-Nov-89 84 0.005 0.287 390 8-Nov-89 84.5 -0.009 0.405
391 7 9-Nov-89 83.5 -0.003 0.284 391 9-Nov-89 84 -0.005 0.4
392 10-Nov-89 83 0.018 0.302 392 10-Nov-89 81 -0.023 0.377
393 20-Nov-89 82 -0.007 0.295 393 20-Nov-89 81 0.002 0.379
394 21-Nov-89 84 0.016 0.311 394 21-Nov-89 81.5 0 0.379
395 22-Nov-89 83 -0.003 0.308 395 22-Nov-89 80 -0.014 0.365
396 23-Nov-89 82 0.018 0.326 396 23-Nov-89 79 0.003 0.368
397 27-Nov-89 81 -0.013 0.313 397 27-Nov-89 78 -0.014 0.354
398 28-Nov-89 76 -0.025 0.288 398 28-Nov-89 75 -0.018 0.336
399 29-Nov-89 73 -0.032 0.256 399 29-Nov-89 72 -0.037 0.299
400 30-Nov-89 73 -0.018 0.238 400 30-Nov-89 73 0.003 0.302
401 1-Dec-89 75 0.013 0.251 401 1-Dec-89 75.5 0.026 0.328
402 4-Dec-89 73.5 -0.059 0.192 402 4-Dec-89 75 -0.029 0.299
403 5-Dec-89 76 0.022 0.214 403 5-Dec-89 76 0.006 0.305
404 6-Dec-89 75 -0.007 0.207 404 6-Dec-89 76 0.003 0.308
405 7-Dec-89 73.5 -0.014 0.193 405 7-Dec-89 75 -0.011 0.297
406 8-Dec-89 79 0.04 0.233 406 8-Dec-89 81 0.06 0.357
407 12-Dec-89 98 0.187 0.42 407 12-Dec-89 92.5 0.111 0.468
408 14-Dec-89 89.5 -0.04 0.38 408 14-Dec-89 87 -0.034 0.434
409 15-Dec-89 85 -0.04 0.34 409 15-Dec-89 84 -0.03 0.404
410 18-Dec-89 85 -0.016 0.324 410 18-Dec-89 83.5 -0.016 0.388
411 19-Dec-89 85.5 0.003 0.327 411 19-Dec-89 86 0.028 0.416
412 20-Dec-89 85 0.01 0.337 412 20-Dec-89 83 -0.027 0.389
413 21-Dec-89 85 0.007 0.344 413 21-Dec-89 84 0.015 0.404
414 22-Dec-89 89 0.033 0.377 414 22-Dec-89 83.5 -0.015 0.389
415 1-Jan-90 90 0.008 0.385 415 1-Jan-90 85 0.015 0.404
416 2-Jan-90 87 -0.025 0.36 416 2-Jan-90 81.5 -0.037 0.367
417 3-Jan-90 84 -0.005 0.355 417 3-Jan-90 84.5 0.052 0.419
418 4-Jan-90 78 -0.064 0.291 418 4-Jan-90 78.5 -0.068 0.351
419 5-Jan-90 78.5 -0.011 0.28 419 5-Jan-90 80 0.008 0.359
420 8-Jan-90 82.5 0.049 0.329 420 8-Jan-90 81.5 0.017 0.376
296
Reliance L and T
421 9-Jan-90 79 -0.033 0.296 421 9-Jan-90 79 -0.026 0.35
422 10-Jan-90 83 0.042 0.338 422 10-Jan-90 79 -0.006 0.344
423 11-Jan-90 82.5 0.001 0.339 423 11-Jan-90 78.5 -0.003 0.341
424 15-Jan-90 79.5 -0.007 0.332 424 15-Jan-90 78 0.009 0.35
425 16-Jan-90 79 0.01 0.342 425 16-Jan-90 76 -0.017 0.333
426 17-Jan-90 77 -0.005 0.337 426 17-Jan-90 75 -0.003 0.33
427 18-Jan-90 77 0.014 0.351 427 18-Jan-90 75.5 0.014 0.344
428 19-Jan-90 72 -0.017 0.334 428 19-Jan-90 73.5 0 0.344
429 22-Jan-90 70 -0.018 0.316 429 22-Jan-90 73.5 0.005 0.349
430 23-Jan-90 72.5 0.014 0.33 430 23-Jan-90 75 0.008 0.357
431 24-Jan-90 74 0.029 0.359 431 24-Jan-90 75.5 0.011 0.368
432 25-Jan-90 70.5 -0.039 0.32 432 25-Jan-90 73 -0.029 0.339
433 30-Jan-90 69 0.007 0.327 433 30-Jan-90 72 0.002 0.341
434 31-Jan-90 67 0.005 0.332 434 31-Jan-90 71 0.004 0.345
435 1-Feb-90 65 -0.042 0.29 435 1-Feb-90 70.5 -0.015 0.33
436 2-Feb-90 65.5 0.025 0.315 436 2-Feb-90 68 -0.027 0.303
437 7-Feb-90 61 -0.048 0.267 437 7-Feb-90 66 -0.018 0.285
438 8-Feb-90 58 -0.019 0.248 438 8-Feb-90 63.5 -0.022 0.263
439 12-Feb-90 59.5 0.005 0.253 439 12-Feb-90 64 -0.005 0.258
440 13-Feb-90 57.5 -0.03 0.223 440 13-Feb-90 63.5 -0.007 0.251
441 14-Feb-90 58.5 0.01 0.233 441 14-Feb-90 67.5 0.058 0.309
442 15-Feb-90 59.5 0.003 0.236 442 15-Feb-90 66 -0.031 0.278
443 16-Feb-90 63 0.063 0.299 443 16-Feb-90 68 0.032 0.31
444 19-Feb-90 59 -0.042 0.257 444 19-Feb-90 65.5 -0.026 0.284
445 21-Feb-90 57.5 -0.022 0.235 445 21-Feb-90 65 -0.006 0.278
446 22-Feb-90 57 -0.006 0.229 446 22-Feb-90 63.5 -0.022 0.256
447 26-Feb-90 64 0.126 0.355 447 26-Feb-90 63.5 0.001 0.257
448 28-Feb-90 53.5 -0.153 0.202 448 28-Feb-90 63.25 0.002 0.259
449 1-Mar-90 55.5 0.013 0.215 449 1-Mar-90 65 0.013 0.272
450 2-Mar-90 54.5 -0.013 0.202 450 2-Mar-90 64 -0.013 0.259
451 5-Mar-90 54 0.004 0.206 451 5-Mar-90 64 0.007 0.266
452 6-Mar-90 53 -0.002 0.204 452 6-Mar-90 63.25 -0.004 0.262
453 7-Mar-90 54 0.023 0.227 453 7-Mar-90 63 -0.002 0.26
454 8-Mar-90 52.5 -0.01 0.217 454 8-Mar-90 61 -0.023 0.237
455 9-Mar-90 51.5 -0.022 0.195 455 9-Mar-90 60 -0.019 0.218
456 13-Mar-90 53.5 0.018 0.213 456 13-Mar-90 59.5 -0.021 0.197
457 14-Mar-90 54 0.021 0.234 457 14-Mar-90 60 0.014 0.211
458 15-Mar-90 52.5 -0.016 0.218 458 15-Mar-90 60 0.006 0.217
459 16-Mar-90 53 0.001 0.219 459 16-Mar-90 60.5 0.002 0.219
460 19-Mar-90 57 0.088 0.307 460 19-Mar-90 63 0.047 0.266
461 20-Mar-90 60 -0.021 0.286 461 20-Mar-90 65.5 -0.003 0.263
462 21-Mar-90 55 -0.072 0.214 462 21-Mar-90 63.5 -0.025 0.238
463 22-Mar-90 59.5 0.057 0.271 463 22-Mar-90 65 0.009 0.247
464 23-Mar-90 66 0.083 0.354 464 23-Mar-90 71.5 0.085 0.332
465 26-Mar-90 73 0.104 0.458 465 26-Mar-90 85 0.187 0.519
466 28-Mar-90 69.5 -0.058 0.4 466 28-Mar-90 84.5 -0.012 0.507
467 30-Mar-90 68 -0.034 0.366 467 30-Mar-90 83.5 -0.02 0.487
468 8 2-Apr-90 66.5 -0.021 0.345 468 2-Apr-90 85.5 0.024 0.511
469 4-Apr-90 64 -0.068 0.277 469 4-Apr-90 122 0.409 0.92
470 5-Apr-90 62 -0.011 0.266 470 5-Apr-90 118 -0.022 0.898
471 6-Apr-90 60.5 0.015 0.281 471 6-Apr-90 104 -0.098 0.8
472 9-Apr-90 60 -0.003 0.278 472 9-Apr-90 92 -0.113 0.687
473 10-Apr-90 66 0.087 0.365 473 10-Apr-90 93 0.003 0.69
474 12-Apr-90 63 0.007 0.372 474 12-Apr-90 90 -0.004 0.686
475 9 17-Apr-90 62.5 -0.015 0.357 475 10 17-Apr-90 87 -0.038 0.648
476 18-Apr-90 64.5 0.007 0.364 476 18-Apr-90 92 0.043 0.691
477 19-Apr-90 65 0.034 0.398 477 19-Apr-90 89 -0.019 0.672
478 20-Apr-90 74 0.098 0.496 478 20-Apr-90 75 -0.181 0.491
479 23-Apr-90 77 0.036 0.532 479 23-Apr-90 77 0.023 0.514
480 24-Apr-90 78 0.018 0.55 480 24-Apr-90 78 0.015 0.529
297
Reliance L and T
481 25-Apr-90 73 -0.063 0.487 481 25-Apr-90 76 -0.026 0.503
482 30-Apr-90 72.5 -0.005 0.482 482 30-Apr-90 76 0 0.503
483 2-May-90 72 0.01 0.492 483 2-May-90 74 -0.018 0.485
484 3-May-90 66.5 -0.062 0.43 484 3-May-90 71 -0.033 0.452
485 4-May-90 65.5 -0.007 0.423 485 4-May-90 70.5 -0.003 0.449
486 7-May-90 66 0.006 0.429 486 7-May-90 71 0.006 0.455
487 0-May-90 65 -0.012 0.417 487 0-May-90 85 0.198 0.653
488 1-May-90 65 0.002 0.419 488 1-May-90 82 -0.035 0.618
489 4-May-90 61 -0.049 0.37 489 4-May-90 82 0.006 0.624
490 15-May-90 64.5 0.043 0.413 490 15-May-90 81 -0.021 0.603
491 17-May-90 63.5 0.013 0.426 491 17-May-90 81 0.015 0.618
492 8-May-90 62 -0.015 0.411 492 8-May-90 78 -0.033 0.585
493 1-May-90 64 0.016 0.427 493 1-May-90 77.5 -0.017 0.568
494 22-May-90 63.5 -0.001 0.426 494 22-May-90 78 0.01 0.578
495 3-May-90 65 0.015 0.441 495 3-May-90 78 -0.006 0.572
496 4-May-90 68 0.05 0.491 496 4-May-90 78 0.001 0.573
497 5-May-90 65 -0.042 0.449 497 5-May-90 78 0 0.573
498 8-May-90 66 -0.015 0.434 498 8-May-90 78 -0.018 0.555
499 29-May-90 66.5 0.009 0.443 499 29-May-90 78.5 0.006 0.561
500 10 30-May-90 65.5 0 0.443 500 30-May-90 76.5 -0.018 0.543
501 31-May-90 65 0.001 0.444 501 1-May-90 76 -0.003 0.54
502 1-Jun-90 64.5 -0.002 0.442 502 1-Jun-90 75 -0.011 0.529
503 4-Jun-90 65 0.014 0.456 503 4-Jun-90 85.5 0.143 0.672
504 5-Jun-90 65 0.007 0.463 504 5-Jun-90 73 -0.143 0.529
505 6-Jun-90 65.5 0.013 0.476 505 6-Jun-90 71.5 -0.019 0.51
506 7-Jun-90 65 0.002 0.478 506 7-Jun-90 72 0.012 0.522
507 11-Jun-90 64.5 -0.011 0.467 507 11-Jun-90 71 -0.017 0.505
508 12-Jun-90 64 0.007 0.474 508 12-Jun-90 70 -0.007 0.498
509 13-Jun-90 63 -0.003 0.471 509 13-Jun-90 71 0.02 0.518
510 14-Jun-90 62.5 -0.0406 0.430 510 14-Jun-90 71 0 0.518
511 15-Jun-90 63 0.009 0.439 511 15-Jun-90 73.5 0.035 0.553
512 19-Jun-90 66 0.043 0.482 512 19-Jun-90 73 -0.01 0.543
513 20-Jun-90 64.5 -0.018 0.464 513 20-Jun-90 71 -0.026 0.517
514 21-Jun-90 65 -0.003 0.461 514 21-Jun-90 72.5 0.014 0.531
515 22-Jun-90 71.5 0.083 0.544 515 22-Jun-90 75.5 0.031 0.562
516 25-Jun-90 75 0.049 0.593 516 25-Jun-90 78 0.032 0.594
517 26-Jun-90 73.5 -0.02 0.573 517 26-Jun-90 76 -0.026 0.568
518 27-Jun-90 77 0.038 0.611 518 27-Jun-90 77 0.007 0.575
519 28-Jun-90 83 0.075 0.686 519 28-Jun-90 80 0.036 0.611
520 11 29-Jun-90 96 0.138 0.824 520 29-Jun-90 87.5 0.082 0.693
521 3-Jul-90 94 -0.034 0.790 521 3-Jul-90 87 -0.014 0.679
522 5-Jul-90 104 0.1 0.890 522 5-Jul-90 89.5 0.025 0.704
523 6-Jul-90 107 0.011 0.901 523 6-Jul-90 92 0.017 0.721
524 9-Jul-90 106.5 0.03 0.931 524 9-Jul-90 97 0.073 0.794
525 10-Jul-90 107 -0.023 0.908 525 10-Jul-90 101 0.025 0.819
526 11-Jul-90 102 -0.056 0.852 526 11-Jul-90 100 -0.016 0.803
527 13-Jul-90 101 -0.023 0.829 527 13-Jul-90 97 -0.038 0.765
528 16-Jul-90 97 -0.05 0.779 528 16-Jul-90 99 0.014 0.779
529 17-Jul-90 99 0.068 0.847 529 17-Jul-90 98 0.015 0.794
530 18-Jul-90 98.5 -0.042 0.805 530 18-Jul-90 98.5 -0.016 0.778
531 20-Jul-90 103.5 0.024 0.829 531 20-Jul-90 97 -0.031 0.747
532 25-Jul-90 124 0.118 0.947 532 25-Jul-90 110 0.088 0.835
533 26-Jul-90 125 0.012 0.959 533 26-Jul-90 112 0.019 0.854
534 27-Jul-90 121 -0.057 0.902 534 27-Jul-90 111 -0.024 0.83
535 30-Jul-90 128 -0.013 0.889 535 30-Jul-90 116 0.004 0.834
536 7-Aug-90 120 0.001 0.890 536 7-Aug-90 105 -0.06 0.774
537 8-Aug-90 114 -0.008 0.882 537 8-Aug-90 102.5 -0.001 0.773
538 9-Aug-90 112 -0.032 0.850 538 9-Aug-90 102 -0.014 0.759
539 10-Aug-90 120 0.052 0.902 539 10-Aug-90 102 -0.012 0.747
540 13-Aug-90 134 0.068 0.970 540 13-Aug-90 108 0.031 0.778
298
Reliance L and T
541 16-Aug-90 140.5 0.057 1.027 541 16-Aug-90 107 -0.005 0.773
542 17-Aug-90 138 -0.006 1.021 542 17-Aug-90 107 0.006 0.779
543 20-Aug-90 158 0.131 1.152 543 20-Aug-90 106 -0.018 0.761
544 21-Aug-90 172 0.053 1.205 544 21-Aug-90 109 0.007 0.768
545 22-Aug-90 199 0.136 1.341 545 22-Aug-90 125 0.134 0.902
546 23-Aug-90 181 -0.08 1.261 546 23-Aug-90 120 -0.035 0.867
547 12 27-Aug-90 186 -0.036 1.225 547 27-Aug-90 155 0.255 1.122
548 28-Aug-90 181 -0.014 1.211 548 28-Aug-90 152 -0.013 1.109
549 29-Aug-90 181 0.014 1.225 549 29-Aug-90 151 0.001 1.11
550 30-Aug-90 177 -0.067 1.158 550 30-Aug-90 152 -0.02 1.09
551 3-Sep-90 188 0.053 1.211 551 3-Sep-90 173.5 0.135 1.225
552 4-Sep-90 175 -0.01 1.201 552 4-Sep-90 160 -0.046 1.179
553 5-Sep-90 172 -0.012 1.189 553 5-Sep-90 155 -0.029 1.15
554 6-Sep-90 168 -0.02 1.169 554 6-Sep-90 151.26 -0.023 1.127
555 7-Sep-90 166 -0.062 1.107 555 7-Sep-90 155 -0.004 1.123
556 10-Sep-90 173 0.02 1.127 556 10-Sep-90 165 0.052 1.175
557 11-Sep-90 180 0.009 1.136 557 11-Sep-90 172.5 0.027 1.202
558 12-Sep-90 176 0.013 1.149 558 12-Sep-90 170 0.005 1.207
559 14-Sep-90 164 -0.011 1.138 559 14-Sep-90 160 -0.028 1.179
560 18-Sep-90 173 -0.024 1.114 560 18-Sep-90 168.75 0.01 1.189
561 19-Sep-90 180 0.029 1.143 561 19-Sep-90 180 0.059 1.248
562 20-Sep-90 185 0.032 1.175 562 20-Sep-90 177.5 -0.012 1.236
563 21-Sep-90 196 0.013 1.188 563 21-Sep-90 166.25 -0.091 1.145
564 25-Sep-90 214 0.03 1.218 564 25-Sep-90 172.5 0.002 1.147
565 26-Sep-90 216 0.063 1.281 565 26-Sep-90 167.5 0 1.147
566 27-Sep-90 204 -0.065 1.216 566 27-Sep-90 160 -0.051 1.096
567 4-Oct-90 201 -0.017 1.199 567 4-Oct-90 155 -0.033 1.063
568 9-Oct-90 245 0.113 1.312 568 9-Oct-90 162.5 -0.012 1.051
569 11-Oct-90 227 -0.004 1.308 569 11-Oct-90 150 -0.039 1.012
570 12-Oct-90 221 -0.023 1.285 570 12-Oct-90 140 -0.066 0.946
571 15-Oct-90 181 -0.023 1.262 571 15-Oct-90 122.5 -0.037 0.909
572 18-Oct-90 190 0.025 1.287 572 18-Oct-90 125 0.006 0.915
573 22-Oct-90 180 0.03 1.317 573 22-Oct-90 118.75 -0.004 0.911
574 25-Oct-90 189 -0.019 1.298 574 25-Oct-90 123.75 0.002 0.913
575 26-Oct-90 196 0.068 1.366 575 26-Oct-90 125 0.026 0.939
576 31-Oct-90 194 -0.03 1.336 576 31-Oct-90 122.5 -0.032 0.907
577 1-Nov-90 212 0.071 1.407 577 1-Nov-90 128.75 0.038 0.945
578 5-Nov-90 224 0.053 1.460 578 5-Nov-90 122.5 -0.052 0.893
579 7-Nov-90 230 -0.013 1.447 579 7-Nov-90 138.75 0.109 1.002
580 8-Nov-90 240 0.021 1.468 580 8-Nov-90 148.75 0.059 1.061
581 9-Nov-90 238 0.012 1.480 581 9-Nov-90 148.75 0.01 1.071
582 12-Nov-90 220 0.012 1.492 582 12-Nov-90 138.75 -0.019 1.052
583 14-Nov-90 215 -0.032 1.460 583 14-Nov-90 133.75 -0.042 1.01
584 16-Nov-90 218 0.006 1.466 584 16-Nov-90 137.5 0.023 1.033
585 21-Nov-90 224 0.081 1.547 585 21-Nov-90 136.25 0.02 1.053
586 22-Nov-90 205 -0.059 1.488 586 22-Nov-90 130 -0.032 1.021
587 23-Nov-90 208 -0.041 1.447 587 23-Nov-90 150 0.122 1.143
588 26-Nov-90 215 0.017 1.464 588 26-Nov-90 150 -0.01 1.133
589 27-Nov-90 207.5 0.007 1.471 589 27-Nov-90 140 -0.044 1.089
590 29-Nov-90 196 0.018 1.489 590 29-Nov-90 130 -0.031 1.058
591 30-Nov-90 185 -0.04 1.449 591 30-Nov-90 128.75 -0.002 1.056
592 3-Dec-90 187 0.007 1.456 592 3-Dec-90 136.25 0.055 1.111
593 4-Dec-90 173 -0.031 1.425 593 4-Dec-90 130 -0.022 1.089
594 5-Dec-90 171.5 -0.015 1.410 594 5-Dec-90 128.75 -0.014 1.075
595 6-Dec-90 178.5 0.039 1.449 595 6-Dec-90 133.75 0.037 1.112
596 10-Dec-90 182 -0.012 1.437 596 10-Dec-90 132.5 -0.028 1.084
597 11-Dec-90 178 -0.001 1.436 597 11-Dec-90 132.5 0.011 1.095
598 12-Dec-90 178 -0.034 1.402 598 12-Dec-90 131.25 -0.029 1.066
599 13-Dec-90 183 0.024 1.426 599 13-Dec-90 137.5 0.045 1.111
600 14-Dec-90 182 0.024 1.450 600 14-Dec-90 136.25 0.007 1.118
299
Reliance L and T
601 17-Dec-90 175 -0.009 1.441 601 17-Dec-90 133 -0.008 1.11
602 18-Dec-90 156 -0.029 1.412 602 18-Dec-90 124.5 -0.02 1.09
603 19-Dec-90 140 -0.032 1.380 603 19-Dec-90 107.5 -0.098 0.992
604 24-Dec-90 130 -0.079 1.301 604 24-Dec-90 116.25 0.076 1.068
605 2-Jan-91 115 -0.042 1.259 605 2-Jan-91 97.5 -0.121 0.947
606 3-Jan-91 107.5 -0.045 1.214 606 3-Jan-91 98.75 0.023 0.97
607 11-Jan-91 110 -0.035 1.179 607 11-Jan-91 101.25 -0.008 0.962
608 14-Jan-91 107.5 0 1.179 608 14-Jan-91 108.72 0.086 1.048
609 23-Jan-91 105 -0.001 1.178 609 23-Jan-91 100 -0.068 0.98
610 24-Jan-91 100 -0.009 1.169 610 24-Jan-91 95 -0.029 0.951
611 25-Jan-91 95 -0.027 1.142 611 25-Jan-91 90 -0.041 0.91
612 31-Jan-91 102.5 0.05 1.192 612 31-Jan-91 102.5 0.122 1.032
613 1-Feb-91 106.25 -0.007 1.185 613 1-Feb-91 105 -0.001 1.031
614 4-Feb-91 117.5 0.075 1.260 614 4-Feb-91 113.75 0.065 1.096
615 5-Feb-91 120 0.005 1.265 615 5-Feb-91 117.5 0.023 1.119
616 6-Feb-91 125 0.055 1.320 616 6-Feb-91 110 -0.057 1.062
617 7-Feb-91 118.75 -0.021 1.299 617 7-Feb-91 105 -0.03 1.032
618 8-Feb-91 115 -0.017 1.282 618 8-Feb-91 103.75 -0.005 1.027
619 11-Feb-91 112.5 0.001 1.283 619 11-Feb-91 102.5 0 1.027
620 13-Feb-91 108.75 -0.02 1.263 620 13-Feb-91 100 -0.018 1.009
621 14-Feb-91 111.25 0.004 1.267 621 14-Feb-91 100 -0.011 0.998
622 15-Feb-91 113.75 0.009 1.276 622 15-Feb-91 100 -0.009 0.989
623 19-Feb-91 135 0.066 1.342 623 19-Feb-91 121.25 0.144 1.133
624 20-Feb-91 133.75 -0.004 1.338 624 20-Feb-91 117.5 -0.029 1.104
625 21-Feb-91 141.25 0.055 1.393 625 21-Feb-91 125 0.062 1.166
626 22-Feb-91 146.25 0.013 1.406 626 22-Feb-91 125 -0.014 1.152
627 26-Feb-91 152.5 0.021 1.427 627 26-Feb-91 127.5 0.007 1.159
628 27-Feb-91 158.75 0.029 1.456 628 27-Feb-91 127.5 -0.008 1.151
629 28-Feb-91 163.75 0.036 1.492 629 28-Feb-91 131.25 0.031 1.182
630 4-Mar-91 157.5 -0.039 1.453 630 4-Mar-91 132.5 0.008 1.19
631 5-Mar-91 158.75 -0.008 1.445 631 5-Mar-91 132.5 -0.01 1.18
632 7-Mar-91 135 -0.056 1.389 632 7-Mar-91 120 -0.043 1.137
633 8-Mar-91 138.75 -0.009 1.380 633 8-Mar-91 122.5 -0.001 1.136
634 11-Mar-91 135 -0.007 1.373 634 11-Mar-91 120 -0.01 1.126
635 12-Mar-91 126.25 -0.052 1.321 635 12-Mar-91 116.25 -0.025 1.101
636 13-Mar-91 128.75 0.029 1.350 636 13-Mar-91 118.75 0.026 1.127
637 14-Mar-91 128 -0.039 1.311 637 14-Mar-91 120 -0.009 1.118
638 15-Mar-91 135 0.048 1.359 638 15-Mar-91 125 0.037 1.155
639 18-Mar-91 127 -0.021 1.338 639 18-Mar-91 117.5 -0.039 1.116
640 20-Mar-91 125 -0.013 1.325 640 20-Mar-91 117.5 0.001 1.117
641 21-Mar-91 121 -0.021 1.304 641 21-Mar-91 115 -0.016 1.101
642 25-Mar-91 120 0.005 1.309 642 25-Mar-91 112.5 -0.015 1.086
643 26-Mar-91 120.5 -0.007 1.302 643 26-Mar-91 112.5 -0.007 1.079
644 27-Mar-91 124.5 0.04 1.342 644 27-Mar-91 116.25 0.036 1.115
645 1-Apr-91 126 -0.01 1.332 645 1-Apr-91 116.25 -0.013 1.102
646 2-Apr-91 129 0.012 1.344 646 2-Apr-91 118.75 0.014 1.116
647 3-Apr-91 128.5 0.007 1.351 647 3-Apr-91 118.75 0.005 1.121
648 4-Apr-91 125.5 -0.015 1.336 648 4-Apr-91 115 -0.028 1.093
649 5-Apr-91 129 0.011 1.347 649 5-Apr-91 118.75 0.022 1.115
650 8-Apr-91 133 0.015 1.362 650 8-Apr-91 120 0.001 1.116
651 9-Apr-91 137 0.032 1.394 651 9-Apr-91 125 0.042 1.158
652 11-Apr-91 135 -0.029 1.365 652 11-Apr-91 133.5 0.059 1.217
653 12-Apr-91 141 0.021 1.386 653 12-Apr-91 139 0.027 1.244
654 15-Apr-91 146 0.026 1.412 654 15-Apr-91 140 0.001 1.245
655 16-Apr-91 146.5 0.032 1.444 655 16-Apr-91 137.5 -0.003 1.242
656 18-Apr-91 143 -0.017 1.427 656 18-Apr-91 112 -0.182 1.06
657 19-Apr-91 145.5 0.01 1.437 657 19-Apr-91 110.5 -0.019 1.041
658 22-Apr-91 144 -0.01 1.427 658 22-Apr-91 101 -0.086 0.955
659 23-Apr-91 139.5 -0.018 1.409 659 23-Apr-91 77.5 -0.028 0.927
660 24-Apr-91 134 -0.033 1.376 660 24-Apr-91 100 0.028 0.955
300
Reliance L and T
661 25-Apr-91 135.5 -0.005 1.371 661 25-Apr-91 101.5 0.005 0.96
662 26-Apr-91 137 0.024 1.395 662 26-Apr-91 102.5 0.016 0.976
663 29-Apr-91 130 -0.03 1.365 663 29-Apr-91 97.5 -0.038 0.938
664 30-Apr-91 130 0.034 1.399 664 30-Apr-91 96 0.003 0.941
665 6-May-91 130.5 -0.012 1.387 665 6-May-91 96 -0.01 0.931
666 7-May-91 127.5 -0.019 1.368 666 7-May-91 95 -0.009 0.922
667 8-May-91 130 0.013 1.381 667 8-May-91 96 0.006 0.928
668 9-May-91 128.5 -0.002 1.379 668 9-May-91 95 -0.006 0.922
669 10-May-91 131 -0.003 1.376 669 10-May-91 97 0.008 0.93
670 13-May-91 133.5 0.021 1.397 670 13-May-91 99 0.021 0.951
671 14-May-91 133 -0.003 1.394 671 14-May-91 97.5 -0.015 0.936
672 16-May-91 139 0.05 1.444 672 16-May-91 100 0.028 0.964
673 17-May-91 144.5 0.038 1.482 673 17-May-91 104 0.038 1.002
674 20-May-91 139.5 -0.019 1.463 674 20-May-91 102 -0.011 0.991
675 21-May-91 152 0.06 1.523 675 21-May-91 108.5 0.046 1.037
676 23-May-91 152 0.009 1.532 676 23-May-91 107 -0.01 1.027
677 27-May-91 151 -0.005 1.527 677 27-May-91 108 0.009 1.036
678 29-May-91 151 -0.005 1.522 678 29-May-91 101.5 -0.064 0.972
679 30-May-91 159 0.05 1.572 679 30-May-91 124 0.219 1.191
680 31-May-91 152 -0.015 1.557 680 31-May-91 118 -0.033 1.158
681 3-Jun-91 146 -0.018 1.539 681 3-Jun-91 118 0.011 1.169
682 4-Jun-91 144 -0.012 1.527 682 4-Jun-91 115.5 -0.021 1.148
683 5-Jun-91 145 0.015 1.542 683 5-Jun-91 115 0 1.148
684 6-Jun-91 144 0.008 1.550 684 6-Jun-91 112.5 -0.014 1.134
685 7-Jun-91 140 -0.001 1.549 685 7-Jun-91 109 -0.017 1.117
686 11-Jun-91 137 -0.03 1.519 686 11-Jun-91 109 -0.006 1.111
687 12-Jun-91 142.5 0.019 1.538 687 12-Jun-91 111 0.006 1.117
688 13-Jun-91 144 0.026 1.564 688 13-Jun-91 112 0.017 1.134
689 14-Jun-91 143.5 -0.016 1.548 689 14-Jun-91 114 0.01 1.144
690 17-Jun-91 155 0.071 1.619 690 17-Jun-91 116 0.011 1.155
691 18-Jun-91 154.5 -0.025 1.594 691 18-Jun-91 117.5 0 1.155
692 19-Jun-91 151.5 -0.007 1.587 692 19-Jun-91 116 -0.007 1.148
693 20-Jun-91 156 0.023 1.610 693 20-Jun-91 117 .00 0.004 1.152
694 21-Jun-91 150 -0.057 1.553 694 21-Jun-91 119 0.006 1.158
695 24-Jun-91 147 0.033 1.586 695 24-Jun-91 112.5 -0.026 1.132
696 25-Jun-91 141.5 -0.03 1.556 696 25-Jun-91 110.5 -0.015 1.117
697 26-Jun-91 142.5 0.037 1.593 697 26-Jun-91 110 0.012 1.129
698 27-Jun-91 141 -0.023 1.570 698 27-Jun-91 111 0.001 1.13
699 28-Jun-91 142 0.029 1.599 699 28-Jun-91 109.5 -0.002 1.128
700 1-Jul-91 134.5 -0.054 1.545 700 1-Jul-91 106.5 -0.029 1.099
701 2-Jul-91 133 0.035 1.580 701 2-Jul-91 106.5 0.025 1.124
702 3-Jul-91 132 -0.083 1.497 702 3-Jul-91 105.5 -0.053 1.071
703 4-Jul-91 125 -0.037 1.460 703 4-Jul-91 104.5 -0.001 1.07
704 05-Jut-91 124 -0.057 1.403 704 05-Jut-91 110.5 0.029 1.099
705 8-Jul-91 130 0.046 1.449 705 8-Jul-91 113.5 0.025 1.124
706 09-Jut-91 133 0.022 1.471 706 09-Jut-91 108.5 -0.045 1.079
707 10-Jul-91 137.5 0.021 1.492 707 10-Jul-91 110.5 0.01 1.089
708 11-Jul-91 136 -0.034 1.458 708 11-Jul-91 114.5 0.022 1.111
709 12-Jul-91 137.5 -0.003 1.455 709 12-Jul-91 115.5 0 1.111
710 15-Jul-91 132.5 -0.004 1.451 710 15-Jul-91 112.5 -0.009 1.102
711 16-Jul-91 132.5 -0.017 1.434 711 16-Jul-91 110.5 -0.028 1.074
712 17-Jul-91 131.5 -0.013 1.421 712 17-Jul-91 110.5 -0.004 1.07
713 19-Jul-91 130 -0.018 1.403 713 19-Jul-91 111 0 1.07
714 22-Jul-91 130 0.033 1.436 714 22-Jul-91 110 0.009 1.079
715 24-Jul-91 137 0.015 1.451 715 24-Jul-91 115 0.023 1.102
716 25-Jul-91 145 -0.006 1.445 716 25-Jul-91 125 0.05 1.152
717 26-Jul-91 156 0.046 1.491 717 26-Jul-91 135 0.062 1.214
718 29-Jul-91 172 0.079 1.570 718 29-Jul-91 142 0.038 1.252
719 30-Jul-91 176 0.02 1.590 719 30-Jul-91 140 -0.017 1.235
720 31-Jul-91 177 0.02 1.610 720 31-Jul-91 139 0 1.235
301
Reliance L and T
721 1-Aug-91 191.5 0.074 1.684 721 1-Aug-91 149 0.067 1.302
722 5-Aug-91 198 0.015 1.699 722 5-Aug-91 163 0.083 1.385
723 7-Aug-91 193 -0.005 1.694 723 7-Aug-91 163 0.01 1.395
724 8-Aug-91 176 -0.067 1.627 724 8-Aug-91 152 -0.056 1.339
725 9-Aug-91 180 0.004 1.631 725 9-Aug-91 150 -0.024 1.315
726 12-Aug-91 177 -0.013 1.618 726 12-Aug-91 147.5 -0.016 1.299
727 13-Aug-91 184 0.027 1.645 727 13-Aug-91 153.75 0.034 1.333
728 14-Aug-91 183 -0.014 1.631 728 14-Aug-91 150 -0.03 1.303
729 16-Aug-91 186.5 0.008 1.639 729 16-Aug-91 152.5 0.01 1.313
730 19-Aug-91 196 0.039 1.678 730 19-Aug-91 151.25 -0.016 1.297
731 20-Aug-91 191 0.006 1.684 731 20-Aug-91 146.25 -0.017 1.28
732 21-Aug-91 185 -0.026 1.658 732 21-Aug-91 142.5 -0.024 1.256
733 22-Aug-91 193 0.016 1.674 733 22-Aug-91 156 0.078 1.334
734 23-Aug-91 195 -0.019 1.655 734 23-Aug-91 157 -0.011 1.323
735 26-Aug-91 206 0.033 1.688 735 26-Aug-91 163.75 0.029 1.352
736 27-Aug-91 196 -0.025 1.663 736 27-Aug-91 153.75 -0.049 1.303
737 28-Aug-91 205 0.041 1.704 737 28-Aug-91 154 -0.002 1.301
738 30-Aug-91 185 -0.073 1.631 738 30-Aug-91 149 -0.02 1.281
739 3-Sep-91 184 0.019 1.650 739 3-Sep-91 147.5 0.003 1.284
740 4-Sep-91 175 -0.055 1.595 740 4-Sep-91 144 -0.028 1.256
741 5-Sep-91 181 0.018 1.613 741 5-Sep-91 149 0.025 1.281
742 6-Sep-91 182 0.008 1.621 742 6-Sep-91 151.25 0.016 1.297
743 10-Sep-91 177 -0.023 1.598 743 10-Sep-91 15750 0.043 1.34
744 13-Sep-91 181 -0.007 1.591 744 13-Sep-91 155 -0.033 1.307
745 16-Sep-91 185 -0.006 1.585 745 16-Sep-91 155 -0.017 1.29
746 13 17-Sep-91 174 -0.035 1.550 746 17-Sep-91 152 -0.006 1.284
747 18-Sep-91 172 -0.007 1.543 747 18-Sep-91 147.5 -0.028 1.256
748 20-Sep-91 170 0.019 1.562 748 20-Sep-91 147 0.013 1.269
749 24-Sep-91 167 -0.003 1.559 749 24-Sep-91 142 -0.027 1.242
750 25-Sep-91 168 0.009 1.568 750 25-Sep-91 140 -0.013 1.229
751 26-Sep-91 170 0.036 1.604 751 26-Sep-91 140 0.013 1.242
752 27-Sep-91 195 0.096 1.700 752 27-Sep-91 141 -0.022 1.22
753 30-Sep-91 185 -0.057 1.643 753 30-Sep-91 146.5 0.035 1.255
754 1-Oct-91 184.5 0.018 1.661 754 1-Oct-91 142 -0.02 1.235
755 3-Oct-91 183 0.023 1.684 755 3-Oct-91 139 -0.005 1.23
756 4-Oct-91 175 -0.012 1.672 756 4-Oct-91 134 -0.019 1.211
757 7-Oct-91 175 -0.001 1.671 757 7-Oct-91 130 -0.031 1.18
758 9-Oct-91 165 -0.011 1.660 758 9-Oct-91 127.5 0.006 1.186
759 10-Oct-91 166 -0.015 1.645 759 10-Oct-91 126.25 -0.022 1.164
760 11-Oct-91 169 0.014 1.659 760 11-Oct-91 128.75 0.017 1.181
761 14-Oct-91 162.5 -0.011 1.648 761 14-Oct-91 123.75 -0.024 1.157
762 15-Oct-91 161 -0.002 1.646 762 15-Oct-91 121.25 -0.017 1.14
763 16-Oct-91 164 -0.011 1.635 763 16-Oct-91 125 0.013 1.153
764 18-Oct-91 168 0.025 1.660 764 18-Oct-91 124 -0.009 1.144
765 21-Oct-91 159.5 -0.021 1.639 765 21-Oct-91 121.5 -0.0105 1.1335
766 22-Oct-91 162 0.003 1.642 766 22-Oct-91 124 0.013 1.1465
767 23-Oct-91 162.5 0.006 1.648 767 23-Oct-91 126 0.017 1.1635
768 24-Oct-91 167 0.013 1.661 768 24-Oct-91 128.75 0.013 1.1765
769 26-Oct-91 163.5 -0.025 1.636 769 26-Oct-91 126 -0.024 1.1525
770 29-Oct-91 172 -0.001 1.635 770 29-Oct-91 136 0.049 1.2015
771 30-Oct-91 170 0.012 1.647 771 30-Oct-91 138 0.027 1.2285
772 18-May-01 378.25 0 0.000 772 18-May-01 245.03 0 0

773 21-May-01 373.8 1.012 1.012 773 21-May-01 243.45 -1.188 -1.188
774 22-May-01 377.5 -0.392 0.620 774 22-May-01 240.35 -0.318 -1.506
775 23-May-01 378.925 1.388 2.008 775 23-May-01 240.75 -0.392 -1.898
776 24-May-01 387.6 1.699 3.707 776 24-May-01 241.2 -0.287 -2.185
777 25-May-01 394.55 -0.156 3.552 777 25-May-01 240.425 3.385 1.199
778 28-May-01 397.55 -0.916 2.636 778 28-May-01 249.9 -0.191 1.008
779 29-May-01 401.325 -0.016 2.620 779 29-May-01 252.6 0.362 1.370
302
Reliance L and T
780 30-May-01 397.725 0.713 3.333 780 30-May-01 251.6 0.763 2.133
781 31-May-01 391 -0.116 3.218 781 31-May-01 248.8 0.134 2.267
782 1-Jun-01 387.25 -0.275 2.942 782 1-Jun-01 247.35 0.229 2.496
783 4-Jun-01 377.975 0.552 3.494 783 4-Jun-01 243.825 -0.084 2.413
784 5-Jun-01 373.325 0.661 4.155 784 5-Jun-01 240.225 1.051 3.464
785 6-Jun-01 374.75 -2.379 1.776 785 6-Jun-01 242.075 -1.019 2.445
786 7-Jun-01 365.35 -0.313 1.463 786 7-Jun-01 239.2 -1.401 1.044
787 8-Jun-01 368.225 3.011 4.474 787 8-Jun-01 237.65 0.484 1.528
788 11-Jun-01 383.7 -3.589 0.885 788 11-Jun-01 240.725 -0.118 1.410
789 12-Jun-01 369.8 0.705 1.591 789 12-Jun-01 240.15 -0.317 1.094
790 13-Jun-01 372.975 -0.385 1.206 790 13-Jun-01 239.5 -2.268 -1.174
791 14-Jun-01 368.4 0.073 1.278 791 14-Jun-01 232.4 -2.267 -3.440
792 15-Jun-01 359.825 -1.501 -0.223 792 15-Jun-01 222.825 -0.875 -4.316
793 18-Jun-01 349.1 -2.272 -2.495 793 18-Jun-01 218.25 -1.214 -5.530
794 19-Jun-01 344.7 -0.742 -3.236 794 19-Jun-01 217.075 -0.291 -5.820
795 20-Jun-01 345.675 -0.792 -4.029 795 20-Jun-01 217.95 -1.050 -6.870
796 21-Jun-01 343.15 -0.004 -4.033 796 21-Jun-01 215.625 -1.776 -8.646
797 22-Jun-01 341.5 1.015 -3.017 797 22-Jun-01 210.9 -1.501 -10.147
798 25-Jun-01 339.575 0.733 -2.284 798 25-Jun-01 205.125 3.305 -6.843
799 26-Jun-01 343.9 0.308 -1.976 799 26-Jun-01 212.55 1.412 -5.431
800 27-Jun-01 351.875 2.300 0.324 800 27-Jun-01 218.55 0.744 -4.687
801 28-Jun-01 360.225 0.691 1.014 801 28-Jun-01 220.125 -0.705 -5.392
802 29-Jun-01 366.5 -0.768 0.246 802 29-Jun-01 220.075 0.882 -4.510
803 2-Jul-01 365.825 -4.548 -4.301 803 2-Jul-01 222.725 -2.014 -6.524
804 3-Jul-01 341.475 -2.481 -6.783 804 3-Jul-01 214.55 -0.043 -6.566
805 4-Jul-01 323.025 1.608 -5.175 805 4-Jul-01 209.7 1.228 -5.339
806 5-Jul-01 330.25 -1.018 -6.193 806 5-Jul-01 213.2 -1.045 -6.384
807 6-Jul-01 326.05 0.344 -5.849 807 6-Jul-01 210.5 -0.885 -7.269
808 9-Jul-01 324.6 1.022 -4.827 808 9-Jul-01 207.35 2.071 -5.197
809 10-Jul-01 331.05 -0.319 -5.146 809 10-Jul-01 213.05 0.188 -5.009
810 11-Jul-01 335.05 -1.117 -6.263 810 11-Jul-01 215.775 0.373 -4.636
811 12-Jul-01 340.525 -1.259 -7.522 811 12-Jul-01 220.875 0.313 -4.323
812 13-Jul-01 341.825 -1.556 -9.079 812 13-Jul-01 224.15 -2.559 -6.882
813 16-Jul-01 334.475 -0.802 -9.880 813 16-Jul-01 217.35 -0.008 -6.890
814 17-Jul-01 329.325 0.831 -9.049 814 17-Jul-01 216.075 0.436 -6.454
815 18-Jul-01 330.475 -0.738 -9.788 815 18-Jul-01 216.2 1.999 -4.455
816 19-Jul-01 323.5 -0.986 -10.773 816 19-Jul-01 218.275 0.476 -3.979
817 20-Jul-01 318.675 -1.402 -12.176 817 20-Jul-01 218.5 -0.864 -4.843
818 23-Jul-01 311.45 0.449 -11.727 818 23-Jul-01 215.25 -1.153 -5.996
819 24-Jul-01 312.15 1.098 -10.629 819 24-Jul-01 212.475 -0.992 -6.987
820 25-Jul-01 312.275 -0.306 -10.935 820 25-Jul-01 208.75 -1.612 -8.599
821 26-Jul-01 308.075 -0.631 -11.566 821 26-Jul-01 203.8 1.929 -6.671
822 27-Jul-01 303.175 1.542 -10.024 822 27-Jul-01 206.3 0.980 -5.691
823 30-Jul-01 309.475 0.849 -9.175 823 30-Jul-01 209.2 0.982 -4.709
824 31-Jul-01 316.675 -0.115 -9.290 824 31-Jul-01 213.575 -1.632 -6.341
825 1-Aug-01 316.35 0.041 -9.248 825 1-Aug-01 210.125 0.393 -5.948
826 2-Aug-01 314.8 0.243 -9.005 826 2-Aug-01 210.125 0.673 -5.275
827 3-Aug-01 317.55 -0.095 -9.100 827 3-Aug-01 212.525 1.091 -4.185
828 6-Aug-01 318.975 2.365 -6.735 828 6-Aug-01 215.7 0.287 -3.897
829 7-Aug-01 325.85 0.651 -6.083 829 7-Aug-01 216 -0.862 -4.759
830 8-Aug-01 326.625 1.659 -4.424 830 8-Aug-01 213.45 0.122 -4.637
831 9-Aug-01 331.55 1.557 -2.867 831 9-Aug-01 213.425 1.713 -2.924
832 10-Aug-01 338.075 -1.328 -4.195 832 10-Aug-01 217.65 1.251 -1.673
833 13-Aug-01 332.525 -3.212 -7.407 833 13-Aug-01 219.775 0.613 -1.060
834 14-Aug-01 322.925 -0.612 -8.019 834 14-Aug-01 221.6 0.466 -0.594
835 16-Aug-01 323.65 -0.451 -8.469 835 16-Aug-01 224.025 1.162 0.569
836 17-Aug-01 320.65 0.334 -8.135 836 17-Aug-01 225.875 -0.787 -0.218
837 20-Aug-01 317.225 0.064 -8.071 837 20-Aug-01 221.825 -0.374 -0.592
838 21-Aug-01 318.475 -0.830 -8.901 838 21-Aug-01 221.6 -0.994 -1.586
839 23-Aug-01 317.875 -0.250 -9.151 839 23-Aug-01 220.5 -2.122 -3.708
303
Reliance L and T
840 24-Aug-01 316.55 -0.594 -9.745 840 24-Aug-01 215.6 0.985 -2.723
841 27-Aug-01 316.45 -0.785 -10.530 841 27-Aug-01 218.65 -0.458 -3.181
842 28-Aug-01 313.625 1.839 -8.691 842 28-Aug-01 217.525 -1.169 -4.349
843 29-Aug-01 316.325 0.841 -7.850 843 29-Aug-01 213.475 -0.317 -4.666
844 30-Aug-01 319 -0.489 -8.339 844 30-Aug-01 212.825 0.574 -4.092
845 31-Aug-01 313.9 0.325 -8.014 845 31-Aug-01 212.3 1.239 -2.853
846 3-Sep-01 311.45 0.500 -7.514 846 3-Sep-01 213.225 -0.577 -3.430
847 4-Sep-01 312.075 0.027 -7.487 847 4-Sep-01 211.575 -0.558 -3.988
848 5-Sep-01 312.2 0.670 -6.817 848 5-Sep-01 210.45 -0.220 -4.208
849 6-Sep-01 311.75 -0.327 -7.144 849 6-Sep-01 208.75 -2.833 -7.041
850 7-Sep-01 308.9 -1.330 -8.474 850 7-Sep-01 201.95 -0.210 -7.251
851 10-Sep-01 305.525 1.294 -7.180 851 10-Sep-01 201.875 -0.481 -7.732
852 11-Sep-01 305.025 2.525 -4.655 852 11-Sep-01 198.75 -0.790 -8.522
853 12-Sep-01 295.25 0.798 -3.857 853 12-Sep-01 188.775 -0.283 -8.805
854 13-Sep-01 294.975 -1.978 -5.835 854 13-Sep-01 187 -3.012 -11.816
855 14-Sep-01 275.5 1.711 -4.124 855 14-Sep-01 174.975 -2.964 -14.781
856 17-Sep-01 256.375 -0.440 -4.564 856 17-Sep-01 158.65 -4.947 -19.727
857 18-Sep-01 255.85 -4.767 -9.331 857 18-Sep-01 151.125 4.883 -14.844
858 19-Sep-01 250.55 -2.230 -11.561 858 19-Sep-01 161.5 1.285 -13.559
859 20-Sep-01 241.35 -1.437 -12.999 859 20-Sep-01 161.975 -1.799 -15.358
860 21-Sep-01 226.15 -1.092 -14.091 860 21-Sep-01 153.45 6.013 -9.345
861 24-Sep-01 218.325 -0.571 -14.662 861 24-Sep-01 160.25 -3.696 -13.041
862 25-Sep-01 216.1 1.611 -13.052 862 25-Sep-01 154.2 -3.836 -16.877
863 26-Sep-01 218.4 5.901 -7.151 863 26-Sep-01 148.025 0.014 -16.863
864 27-Sep-01 235.35 5.404 -1.747 864 27-Sep-01 150.35 0.192 -16.671
865 28-Sep-01 255.425 2.026 0.280 865 28-Sep-01 154.25 2.012 -14.659
866 1-Oct-01 264.2 -2.633 -2.354 866 1-Oct-01 158.975 0.942 -13.717
867 3-Oct-01 253.1 -1.562 -3.915 867 3-Oct-01 158.625 0.075 -13.642
868 4-Oct-01 247.975 0.452 -3.463 868 4-Oct-01 158.275 1.387 -12.255
869 5-Oct-01 251.05 1.216 -2.247 869 5-Oct-01 161.5 -1.864 -14.120
870 8-Oct-01 249.2 1.364 -0.883 870 8-Oct-01 156.275 -0.117 -14.236
871 9-Oct-01 253.625 -3.335 -4.217 871 9-Oct-01 156.65 -2.112 -16.349
872 10-Oct-01 254.175 0.034 -4.184 872 10-Oct-01 157.5 0.339 -16.009
873 11-Oct-01 259.75 1.875 -2.309 873 11-Oct-01 160.6 -0.075 -16.084
874 12-Oct-01 268.25 1.023 -1.286 874 12-Oct-01 162.175 2.742 -13.342
875 15-Oct-01 270.8 0.040 -1.246 875 15-Oct-01 166.525 3.399 -9.943
876 16-Oct-01 272.8 1.677 0.431 876 16-Oct-01 173.05 -1.785 -11.728
877 17-Oct-01 281.05 -0.283 0.148 877 17-Oct-01 171.725 -2.117 -13.845
878 18-Oct-01 277.45 -0.484 -0.335 878 18-Oct-01 166.8 1.574 -12.271
879 19-Oct-01 276.475 -0.166 -0.501 879 19-Oct-01 169.55 2.035 -10.236
880 22-Oct-01 275.875 -1.301 -1.802 880 22-Oct-01 172.925 0.132 -10.104
881 23-Oct-01 274.45 -1.481 -3.283 881 23-Oct-01 174.175 -4.138 -14.242
882 24-Oct-01 271.225 -1.529 -4.812 882 24-Oct-01 167.4 -1.027 -15.270
883 25-Oct-01 264.85 0.596 -4.216 883 25-Oct-01 164.675 0.222 -15.048
884 29-Oct-01 263.925 -1.697 -5.913 884 29-Oct-01 163.925 -0.095 -15.143
885 30-Oct-01 253.875 -0.012 -5.924 885 30-Oct-01 161.25 1.657 -13.486
886 31-Oct-01 252.7 0.286 -5.638 886 31-Oct-01 163.475 -0.379 -13.865
887 1-Nov-01 258.4 0.576 -5.062 887 1-Nov-01 165.35 -0.886 -14.751
888 2-Nov-01 262.325 0.533 -4.529 888 2-Nov-01 165.125 1.564 -13.187
889 14 5-Nov-01 262.025 0.933 -3.595 889 5-Nov-01 166.975 4.160 -9.027
890 15 6-Nov-01 264.375 -0.401 -3.996 890 6-Nov-01 173.95 2.755 -6.272
891 7-Nov-01 261.4 0.091 -3.905 891 7-Nov-01 177.925 2.987 -3.286
892 16 8-Nov-01 260.575 -0.171 -4.076 892 8-Nov-01 182.875 10.617 7.331
893 17 9-Nov-01 263.25 0.565 -3.511 893 9-Nov-01 204.125 4.018 11.349
894 18 12-Nov-01 265.575 0.539 -2.972 894 12-Nov-01 213.175 -4.152 7.198
895 19 13-Nov-01 265.875 2.557 -0.415 895 13-Nov-01 204.075 -0.474 6.723
896 14-Nov-01 273.2 -0.873 -1.288 896 14-Nov-01 203.75 -0.112 6.611
897 15-Nov-01 276.175 0.205 -1.083 897 15-Nov-01 206.75 0.018 6.629
898 20 16-Nov-01 276.175 3.126 2.043 898 16-Nov-01 206.75 -4.268 2.361
899 19-Nov-01 295.35 1.041 3.084 899 19-Nov-01 204.025 -1.463 0.898
304
Reliance L and T
900 20-Nov-01 300.25 -1.501 1.583 900 20-Nov-01 202.075 1.524 2.422
901 21-Nov-01 292.5 -0.395 1.188 901 21-Nov-01 203.6 2.822 5.244
902 22-Nov-01 292.575 0.256 1.444 902 22-Nov-01 210.1 -1.363 3.881
903 23-Nov-01 293.6 -0.100 1.344 903 23-Nov-01 207.55 -0.685 3.197
904 26-Nov-01 297.1 -1.387 -0.044 904 26-Nov-01 208.25 -0.817 2.379
905 27-Nov-01 296.375 -0.162 -0.206 905 27-Nov-01 208.425 0.455 2.834
906 28-Nov-01 291.85 -0.053 -0.259 906 28-Nov-01 207.4 -0.425 2.410
907 29-Nov-01 290.65 -0.058 -0.317 907 29-Nov-01 206.125 1.590 3.999
908 3-Dec-01 290.375 1.224 0.907 908 3-Dec-01 209.5 2.337 6.337
909 4-Dec-01 294.725 2.226 3.133 909 4-Dec-01 215 -1.068 5.268
910 5-Dec-01 309.525 -0.665 2.468 910 5-Dec-01 217.325 0.274 5.542
911 6-Dec-01 314.975 -1.416 1.052 911 6-Dec-01 221.9 0.374 5.916
912 7-Dec-01 310.35 0.655 1.707 912 7-Dec-01 222.725 -0.333 5.583
913 10-Dec-01 313.325 0.458 2.165 913 10-Dec-01 222.6 1.854 7.437
914 11-Dec-01 313 -0.079 2.086 914 11-Dec-01 225.9 -0.534 6.903
915 12-Dec-01 312.025 0.990 3.077 915 12-Dec-01 224.425 -2.276 4.627
916 13-Dec-01 312.225 0.245 3.321 916 13-Dec-01 217.9 -1.515 3.112
917 14-Dec-01 309.4 1.153 4.474 917 14-Dec-01 212.825 -0.784 2.328
918 18-Dec-01 310.225 2.392 6.866 918 18-Dec-01 209.825 -2.904 -0.576
919 19-Dec-01 311.8 0.404 7.270 919 19-Dec-01 200.85 -0.923 -1.499
920 20-Dec-01 308.4 0.741 8.011 920 20-Dec-01 196.75 -1.650 -3.149
921 21-Dec-01 309.05 0.933 8.944 921 21-Dec-01 192.7 -1.269 -4.418
922 24-Dec-01 309.075 0.606 9.550 922 24-Dec-01 188.875 -0.551 -4.968
923 26-Dec-01 307.3 1.144 10.694 923 26-Dec-01 186.1 -0.999 -5.967
924 27-Dec-01 304.45 -0.922 9.772 924 27-Dec-01 181.3 -0.459 -6.426
925 28-Dec-01 302.25 -1.951 7.821 925 28-Dec-01 180.625 3.232 -3.194
926 31-Dec-01 304.375 -1.110 6.712 926 31-Dec-01 189.9 -0.797 -3.991
927 2-Jan-02 304.725 -2.869 3.843 927 2-Jan-02 190.05 0.428 -3.563
928 3-Jan-02 300.525 0.675 4.518 928 3-Jan-02 192.9 -0.183 -3.746
929 4-Jan-02 308.75 2.230 6.748 929 4-Jan-02 195.475 0.538 -3.208
930 7-Jan-02 320.275 -2.249 4.499 930 7-Jan-02 198.65 -2.067 -5.275
931 8-Jan-02 317.175 2.274 6.773 931 8-Jan-02 196.325 -0.834 -6.109
932 9-Jan-02 324.125 2.044 8.816 932 9-Jan-02 194.475 2.000 -4.110
933 10-Jan-02 326.925 0.843 9.659 933 10-Jan-02 196.525 0.516 -3.594
934 11-Jan-02 327.675 -0.488 9.171 934 11-Jan-02 196.5 2.116 -1.477
935 14-Jan-02 328.55 -0.975 8.197 935 14-Jan-02 201.6 1.490 0.012
936 15-Jan-02 324.025 0.215 8.412 936 15-Jan-02 203.875 -0.712 -0.700
937 16-Jan-02 321.525 -1.821 6.590 937 16-Jan-02 200.85 -1.414 -2.114
938 17-Jan-02 318.45 -1.505 5.085 938 17-Jan-02 199.2 1.421 -0.692
939 18-Jan-02 315.825 -0.204 4.881 939 18-Jan-02 202.95 0.207 -0.486
940 21-Jan-02 313.175 0.012 4.893 940 21-Jan-02 202.375 -0.009 -0.494
941 22-Jan-02 313.05 0.442 5.336 941 22-Jan-02 202.25 -0.701 -1.195
942 23-Jan-02 313.8 0.278 5.614 942 23-Jan-02 200.5 -1.509 -2.705
943 24-Jan-02 314.4 0.738 6.351 943 24-Jan-02 197.3 -0.497 -3.201
944 25-Jan-02 313.75 0.898 7.249 944 25-Jan-02 194.875 1.257 -1.945
945 28-Jan-02 314.4 0.946 8.195 945 28-Jan-02 196.25 -0.312 -2.257
946 29-Jan-02 315.775 0.683 8.878 946 29-Jan-02 194.825 -0.750 -3.007
947 30-Jan-02 316.075 -2.832 6.046 947 30-Jan-02 192.425 0.659 -2.348
948 31-Jan-02 308.05 -2.525 3.521 948 31-Jan-02 194 0.462 -1.886
949 4-Feb-02 302.325 -1.076 2.445 949 4-Feb-02 195.8 -0.199 -2.085
950 5-Feb-02 297.375 -4.005 -1.561 950 5-Feb-02 194.6 0.934 -1.151
951 6-Feb-02 292.675 0.279 -1.282 951 6-Feb-02 199.925 0.137 -1.014
952 7-Feb-02 299.9 2.066 0.784 952 7-Feb-02 203.525 0.019 -0.995
953 8-Feb-02 309.375 -0.701 0.083 953 8-Feb-02 205.275 2.124 1.129
954 11-Feb-02 311.55 -0.378 -0.295 954 11-Feb-02 211.775 -0.374 0.755
955 12-Feb-02 310.575 -0.414 -0.709 955 12-Feb-02 211.125 -0.852 -0.097
956 13-Feb-02 309.4 -0.473 -1.182 956 13-Feb-02 209.425 -0.416 -0.513
957 14-Feb-02 312.2 -0.452 -1.634 957 14-Feb-02 210.725 1.119 0.606
958 15-Feb-02 314.225 -0.146 -1.780 958 15-Feb-02 214.825 -0.712 -0.105
959 18-Feb-02 318.4 1.519 -0.261 959 18-Feb-02 215.675 -2.156 -2.261
305
Reliance L and T
960 19-Feb-02 322.9 -0.157 -0.418 960 19-Feb-02 210.875 -2.176 -4.437
961 20-Feb-02 316.175 -0.095 -0.513 961 20-Feb-02 203.25 -0.489 -4.926
962 21-Feb-02 316.375 -1.386 -1.898 962 21-Feb-02 202.45 -1.783 -6.708
963 22-Feb-02 313.65 -0.488 -2.386 963 22-Feb-02 199.575 -0.419 -7.127
964 25-Feb-02 315.125 -0.934 -3.320 964 25-Feb-02 200.1 -0.901 -8.028
965 26-Feb-02 318.975 0.335 -2.985 965 26-Feb-02 201.425 0.492 -7.536
966 27-Feb-02 324.725 0.556 -2.429 966 27-Feb-02 204.525 -1.290 -8.826
967 28-Feb-02 317.875 -0.422 -2.851 967 28-Feb-02 197.775 -0.434 -9.260
968 1-Mar-02 314.075 -0.415 -3.266 968 1-Mar-02 195.7 -0.560 -9.819
969 4-Mar-02 320.975 -0.524 -3.790 969 4-Mar-02 198.3 0.171 -9.648
970 5-Mar-02 314.775 -0.518 -4.308 970 5-Mar-02 196.475 -0.626 -10.274
971 6-Mar-02 311.15 -0.908 -5.216 971 6-Mar-02 194.25 0.134 -10.140
972 7-Mar-02 311 -0.829 -6.045 972 7-Mar-02 195.675 -0.394 -10.534
973 8-Mar-02 310.425 -0.907 -6.951 973 8-Mar-02 195.775 -0.320 -10.855
974 11-Mar-02 303.65 -0.113 -7.064 974 11-Mar-02 193.25 0.915 -9.940
975 12-Mar-02 295.5 -0.137 -7.201 975 12-Mar-02 191.325 0.669 -9.271
976 13-Mar-02 292.75 0.765 -6.436 976 13-Mar-02 191.5 0.178 -9.093
977 14-Mar-02 297.525 1.119 -5.316 977 14-Mar-02 193.1 -1.044 -10.137
978 15-Mar-02 303.625 1.288 -4.028 978 15-Mar-02 192.425 -1.225 -11.361
979 18-Mar-02 309.275 -0.180 -4.208 979 18-Mar-02 190.85 0.957 -10.404
980 19-Mar-02 304.825 -0.836 -5.044 980 19-Mar-02 190.825 0.537 -9.867
981 20-Mar-02 300.925 1.688 -3.356 981 20-Mar-02 191.175 0.188 -9.679
982 21-Mar-02 303.525 0.888 -2.468 982 21-Mar-02 190.35 -0.385 -10.064
983 22-Mar-02 303.525 1.129 -1.338 983 22-Mar-02 188.325 -1.078 -11.142
984 26-Mar-02 301.85 0.645 -0.693 984 26-Mar-02 183.9 0.289 -10.853
985 27-Mar-02 300.675 0.107 -0.586 985 27-Mar-02 182.95 1.949 -8.904
986 28-Mar-02 300.85 -0.732 -1.318 986 28-Mar-02 186.375 -2.046 -10.950
987 1-Apr-02 301.2 0.069 -1.249 987 1-Apr-02 183.675 0.365 -10.585
988 2-Apr-02 302.75 0.396 -0.853 988 2-Apr-02 184.875 0.039 -10.547
989 3-Apr-02 301.075 0.591 -0.262 989 3-Apr-02 183.575 0.203 -10.343
990 4-Apr-02 303.3 0.223 -0.039 990 4-Apr-02 184.075 -0.511 -10.855
991 5-Apr-02 306.1 0.339 0.300 991 5-Apr-02 184 -0.502 -11.357
992 8-Apr-02 305 -0.246 0.054 992 8-Apr-02 182.025 0.027 -11.330
993 9-Apr-02 302 -1.202 -1.148 993 9-Apr-02 180.975 -1.331 -12.661
994 10-Apr-02 298.1 -0.851 -1.999 994 10-Apr-02 178.35 -1.082 -13.743
995 11-Apr-02 297.25 0.077 -1.922 995 11-Apr-02 177.075 -0.773 -14.515
996 12-Apr-02 298.7 0.067 -1.855 996 12-Apr-02 176.15 -0.899 -15.415
997 15-Apr-02 296.875 0.404 -1.451 997 15-Apr-02 173.575 0.140 -15.275
998 16-Apr-02 292.1 -0.433 -1.884 998 16-Apr-02 171.125 -0.222 -15.497
999 17-Apr-02 290.1 1.202 -0.682 999 17-Apr-02 170.325 0.686 -14.811
1000 18-Apr-02 292.15 0.292 -0.390 1000 18-Apr-02 170.775 1.359 -13.452
1001 19-Apr-02 289.2 -0.344 -0.734 1001 19-Apr-02 171.35 -0.566 -14.018
1002 22-Apr-02 286.15 1.394 0.661 1002 22-Apr-02 169.4 -1.093 -15.111
1003 23-Apr-02 291.75 -0.583 0.078 1003 23-Apr-02 168.175 -0.429 -15.540
1004 24-Apr-02 291.325 -0.064 0.013 1004 24-Apr-02 167.875 1.329 -14.211
1005 25-Apr-02 288.525 0.799 0.813 1005 25-Apr-02 168.875 1.350 -12.861
1006 26-Apr-02 287.975 -0.985 -0.172 1006 26-Apr-02 169.825 2.138 -10.723
1007 29-Apr-02 281.3 -1.484 -1.656 1007 29-Apr-02 171.7 1.449 -9.274
1008 30-Apr-02 274.825 1.474 -0.182 1008 30-Apr-02 173.125 -1.357 -10.631
1009 2-May-02 283.275 0.752 0.570 1009 2-May-02 172.85 -0.584 -11.215
1010 3-May-02 286 1.101 1.671 1010 3-May-02 172.075 0.368 -10.847
1011 6-May-02 289.65 -0.310 1.361 1011 6-May-02 172.875 0.807 -10.040
1012 7-May-02 290.125 -0.467 0.895 1012 7-May-02 174.8 1.457 -8.583
1013 8-May-02 292.125 -0.622 0.272 1013 8-May-02 178.775 1.012 -7.571
1014 9-May-02 292.775 -0.155 0.118 1014 9-May-02 181.65 1.308 -6.263
1015 10-May-02 290.1 -0.878 -0.760 1015 10-May-02 182.975 2.108 -4.155
1016 13-May-02 286.8 0.011 -0.749 1016 13-May-02 186.475 1.357 -2.798
1017 14-May-02 285.95 0.425 -0.324 1017 14-May-02 188.625 -0.490 -3.288
1018 15-May-02 283.85 0.324 0.000 1018 15-May-02 186.15 -0.759 -4.047
306
CASE - 2
HUTCH ACQUISITION BY VODAFONE
Vodafone Group PLC Profile: Vodafone Group Plc is a global telecommunications
company headquartered in Newbury, United Kingdom but registered in Netherlands
for tax purposes. It is the world's second largest mobile telecommunications company
measured by both revenues and number of subscribers, with around 371 million
customers as on May 2012. It operates networks in over 30 countries and has partner
networks in over 40 additional countries42. It provides telecommunications and IT
services to multinational corporate client in over 65 countries. It owns 45% of
Verizon Wireless, the largest mobile telecommunications company in the United
States measured by number of subscribers43. Its primary listing is on the London
Stock Exchange and it is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. It had a market
capitalization of approximately £89.4 billion as of 23 December 2011, making it the
third largest company on the London Stock Exchange44. It has a secondary listing on
NASDAQ
Essar Group Profile: The Essar Group is a multinational conglomerate corporation
in the sectors of Steel, Energy, Power, Communications, Shipping Ports & Logistics,
as well as Construction. The Group's annual revenues were over $27 billion, 75000
employees, and operations in more than 25 countries across five continents45. In 2009-
10, revenue was 42402 crores and PAT was 29 crores. However, in 2010-11,
revenue was 53119 crores (increased by 25%) while PAT was 654 crores (increased
by 23%). In 2012 revenue increased by 24% at 58336 crores but had loss of 4,199
crores.
1
http://www.vodafone.com/content/index/about/about_us.html accessed on 30th May 2.012
2
http://aboutus.verizonwireless.com/ataglance.html accessed on 30th May 2012
3
http://www.stockchallenge.co.uk/ftse.php accessed on 30th May 2012
4
http://www.essar.com/article.aspx?cont_id=qgycq66MFKM= accessed on 30th May 2012
307
Essar began construction business in 1969 and has diversified into manufacturing,
services, and retail over the years since then. Over the last decade, it has grown-up
due to planned global acquisitions and partnerships, or through Greenfield and
Brownfield development projects, capturing new markets and discovering new raw
material sources. At the moment, the Essar Group continues to spread out its
operations worldwide, concentrating on markets in Asia, Africa, Europe, America,
and Australia. Essar Group devotes extensively in the most up-to-date technology to
drive forward and backward integration in its businesses, and on leveraging synergies
between these businesses. In 1992, it acquired the South India Shipping Corporation.
In 1993, it won exploration bids for fields in Rajasthan and offshore Bombay
construction of a 510 megawatt (MW) power plant was commissioned in Hazira,
Suart. In 1995, Essar entered into the mobile telecommunication market. In 1999, it
experienced default on Loan payments and in 2002, cell phone operations started with
joint venture as Hutchison Essar. Hutchison- Essar acquired BPL‘s cell phone
businesses of India in 2005.
Hutch Profile: Hutchison Whampoa Limited (HWL) of Hong Kong is a Fortune 500
company in the sectors of Ports & related services, Property & Hotels, Retail,
Infrastructure, Energy, Finance & Investment, and Telecommunication. One of the
largest companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, HWL is an international
corporation with a diverse array of holdings which includes the world's biggest port
and telecommunication operations in 26 countries, holding interests in 52 ports
comprising 315 tie-ups46.
46
http://202.66.146.82/listco/hk/hutchison/annual/2004/ar2004.pdf accessed on 10th June 2012
308
Vodafone-Essar: The Case - The Hutchison Group, Hong Kong (HK) invested into
the Telecom business in India in 1992, an Indian joint venture by the name of
Hutchison Max Telecom Limited (HMTL). In 1994, received a license to provide
mobile telecommunication services in Mumbai and started commercial services as
Hutchison Max in November 1995. In Delhi, Uttar Pradesh (East), Rajasthan and
Haryana, Eassr Group was the major collaborator but later Hutch took the majority
investment in 2004 and renamed as Hutchison Essar Limited (HEL). Hutchison
Whampoa had acquired business interests in 6 mobile telecommunications business
and given service in 13 circles which increased to 16 areas after acquisition of BPL
Mobile. Hutchison Telecommunications International limited (HTIL), listed on Hong
Kong and New York Stock Exchange in September 2004. Later in February 2005, all
operating companies below HEL were brought under HMTL/HEL holding company.
This was with the approval of RBI and Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).
The ownership of the said holding company i.e. HMTL/HEL was merged into
companies based in Mauritius. Telecom Investments India Private Ltd (TII)47,
IndusInd Telecom Network Ltd (ITNL)48, and Usha Martin Telematics Ltd (UMTL)49
were the other shareholders, other than Hutchison and Essar, in HMTL/HEL.
On 28th October 2005, Vodafone International Holdings BV (VIH) decided to acquire
5.61% shareholding in Bharti Televentures Ltd. On the same day, Vodafone Mauritius
Limited (subsidiary of VIH) also decided to acquire 4.39% shareholding in Bharti
Enterprise Pvt. Ltd, which ultimately held shares in Bharti Televentures Ltd (now
Bharti Airtel Ltd). On 25th December 2006, an acquisition proposal came from Essar
Group to acquire HTIL‘s 66.99% shareholding at the highest offer price received by
HTIL. Essar stated that any sale by HTIL required its approval as it claimed to be a
co-promoter of HEL.
47
TII had 19.5381% in HEL
48
ITNL renamed as Omega Telecom Holdings Private limited (India) had 5.1108% in HEL
49
UMTL had 6.0672% in HEL
309
Hutchison Telecommunications International a non-resident buyer and company
established in Hong Kong sold its equity shares in the foreign investment company
CGP Investments Holdings Ltd50(CGP)., to Vodafone, a Dutch non-resident acquirer.
Vodafone Essars‘ was acquired by Vodafone 52%, Essar Group 33%, and other
Indian residents, 15% respectively. On 11th February 2007, Vodafone permitted to
acquire the controlling interest of 67% apprehended by Li KaShing Holdings in
Hutch-Essar for $11.1 billion. The whole company was valued at $18.8 billion. The
deal was subject to approval by reaching an agreement with Bharti that allowed VIH
to make an acquisition bid on Hutch and entering into a suitable partnership
agreement to fulfill FDI rules in India.
On 12.02.2007, Vodafone made public announcement to Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), Washington and on London Stock Exchange which enclosed two
declarations stating that Vodafone had decided to purchase a controlling interest in
HEL via its subsidiary VIH and, second, that Vodafone had decided to acquire
companies that control a 67% interest in HEL. HTIL also made an announcement on
HK Stock Exchange stating that it had provided consent to sell its complete direct and
indirect equity and loan interests held through subsidiaries, in HEL to VIH. On 20th
Feb 2007, VIH submitted an application for authorization to FIPB. This request was
made pursuant to Press Note 1 which related to purchase of an indirect interest in
HEL by VIH from HTIL. It was declared that ―CGP owned directly and indirectly
through its subsidiaries an aggregate of 42.34% of the issued share capital of HEL and
a further indirect interest in 9.62% of the issued share capital of HEL.‖ The deal
resulted in VIH purchasing an indirect controlling interest of 51.96% in HEL, as VIH
competing with Bharti therefore, sanction of FIPB became compulsory. It was also
noticed that on 20th Feb 2007 VIH held 5.61% stake (directly) in Bharti.
50
Registered for tax purposes in the Cayman Islands (which, in order, seized equity shares of
Hutchison-Essar - Indian functioning company, through another Mauritius entity)
310
By dispatch dated 14th March 2007, forwarded by VIH to FIPB, it stood
verified that VIH‘s actual equity shareholding in HEL is 51.96%, subsequent
conclusion of the acquisition HTIL‘s equity shares in HEL the ownership of HEL
were to be as follows:
1. VIH owned 42% direct interest in HEL due to its acquisition of 100% CGP (CI).
2. Through CGP (CI), VIH also owned 37.25% in TII which in order owns 19.54%
in HEL and 38% in Omega which in turn owns 5.11% in HEL (i.e. pro-rata
route).
3. These investments combined give VIH a controlling interest of 52% in HEL.
4. HTIL‘s existing Indian partners AG, AS and IDFC (i.e. SMMS), who held 15%
interest in HEL (i.e. option route), decided to hold their shareholdings with full
control, including voting rights and dividend rights..
5. The Essar Group continued to own 33% of HEL.
On 1st July 2011, Vodafone group agreed on terms for the buy-out of its
partner Essar remaining stake i.e. 33% investment for $5.46 billion. It will leave
Vodafone owning 74% of the Indian business, while the other 26% will be owned by
Indian investors, in compliance with Indian law51. The total Vodafone GSM
subscribers in India were around 151.28 million by the end of April 2012 i.e., 23% of
the total 670.57 million GSM subscribers.
Individual Investors: There were two large equity stake holders Mr. Analjit
Singh and Mr. Asim Ghosh. They sold their stakes to Vodafone on 1st December
2009. Mr. Asim Ghosh, the earlier Managing Director (MD) of Vodafone Essar, had
51
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13996525 accessed on 31st May 2012
311
4.68% equity stake in the company acquired through investment company AG
Mercantile, and sold 2.29% of his equity stake for about 3.3 billion. However Mr.
Analjit Singh, who had a 7.58% share through three companies, sold 3.71% of his
stake for over 5 billion. After the sale, the stakes held by Mr. Ghosh and Mr. Singh
in Vodafone Essar came down to 2.39% and 3.87% respectively.
A simplified structure of the acquisition is shown in the diagram 6.1 below:
Key questions before the Court ;
Whether the show cause notice given by the Revenue authorities was without
jurisdiction as Vodafone couldn‘t be said to be responsible under section 201 of
the Income tax Act 1961 for not withholding tax?
Whether the provisions concerning to holding tax obligation under section 195
of the Acts have additional territorial claim and a non-resident without any
authority in India has a compulsion to comply with Income tax?
Whether M & A deal per se resulted in income liable to tax in India?
312
Supreme Court of India Decision:
On 20th March 2012, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled in favour of Vodafone in
the $2 billion tax case, stated that it was difficult to agree with the judgment arrived
by the High Court that the sale of CGP shareholding by HTIL to Vodafone would
amount to transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2 (14) of the Indian
Income Tax Act and the rights and entitlements flow from FWAs, SHAs, Term Sheet,
loan assignments, brand license etc. form integral part of CGP share therefore capital
gains tax is not applicable. As a result, the demand of nearly 12,000 crores as capital
gains tax, would amount to imposing capital punishment for capital investment and
lacks authority of law therefore, remains nullified. The court also ruled that 2,500
crore which Vodafone has already paid should be returned to Vodafone with interest.
The SC judgment will be a big boost for cross-border M & As in India.
Almost five years after the Indian tax authorities issued the first notice to
Vodafone International on 20th January, 2012, Chief Justice of India, SH Kapadia and
Justice KS Radhakrishnan ruled that deal is not taxable in India, and made the
following comments/interpretation while declaring the verdict:
At the moment, there are no provisions in the Indian Income tax law to tax the
deal.
Likewise, provisions which consider an individual as a representative of a foreign
company for the purpose of tax and recovery of tax due from such a foreign entity
aren‘t relevant in the absence of associative relation.
There is no extinguishment of property rights in India due to the transfer of equity
shares between two foreign entities of shares in another foreign entity.
313
The duration of the investment structure, timing of exit and running of business,
are vital aspects whereas assessing as to whether the deal is a deception. Taking
into consideration the realistic pattern in the present situation, the SC held that the
deal is not a deception.
Tax provisions in the Indian national tax law can‘t be relevant to cross-border
deals
IT department has also been intended to refund the total amount ($ 0.5 billion)
credited by Vodafone as part payment towards the demanded tax in early 2011
along with interest
The judgment of the SC is heralded as a landmark judgment in the taxation of
international deals and on the legal tactic to tax prevention. This case is, conceivably,
the first in the globe where the problem of taxation on indirect transfer of equity
shares is being sued before a country‘s uppermost legal forum. It could be of
importance in determining India‘s tax policy on worldwide taxation and tax
prevention in the future.
Analysis of Wealth Effect of key events:
The CAR of Vodafone is reported in Table No - 6:5. On 11th February 2007,
Vodafone announced acquisition of controlling interest of 67% in Eassar group
controlled Hutch communication where stock market reaction was captured by event
study. The negative CAR showed for event windows (-11, 0), (-11, +11), (0, +11),
(-5, +5) and (0, +180) while positive CAR was noticed in CAR (-1, +1) and CAR
(-180, 0) windows. On 8th May 2007, Vodafone acquisition of Hutch finally
314
completed where stock market reaction was positive for post event window i.e. (CAR
(0, +180)) while negative CAR noticed for all other event windows. On 1 st December
2009, Mr. Analjit Singh and Mr. Asim Ghosh sold their equity shares to Vodafone
where positive CAR noticed for all windows except for CAR (0, +180). However, on
1st July 2011, Vodafone group agreed to buy-out of remaining equity shares Essar i.e.
33% investment where negative CAR showed for all windows except for CAR (0,
+180). The event on 8th May 2007 and 1st July 211 showed similar trend for all
windows.
The Highest CAR is noticed for CAR (0, +180) on 8th May 2007 where
Vodafone announced acquisition of controlling interest of Hutch communication
from Eassar group while lowest CAR is showed in CAR (-180, 0).
Conclusion:
After reviewing and critically analyzing the case, it was found that M & A
adopted by Vodafone was horizontal integration and a cross boarder acquisition. A
London based company acquired Hong Kong based company HTI from its major
shareholders. It was surprising to note that the value of wealth from the date of events
decreased in maximum event windows. This may be due to the low profile of HTI in
telecom business when compared to Vodafone. There was a sustainable growth in
CAR of Vodafone during the post event window but there was no sudden incremental
growth in CAR during the pre-event window or even immediately after the
acquisition.
315
6.2. APPENDIX
Table - 6:5 Presents the Cumulative Abnormal Returns (CAR) of Vodafone
CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR

Announcement Date
(-11, 0) (-11, +11) (0, +11) (-1, +1) (-5, +5) (-180, 0) (0, +180)
11-Feb-07 -2.011 -6.714 -3.986 0.538 -1.828 7.939 -7.286
08-May-07 -2.469 -3.205 -1.550 -1.608 -2.610 -12.584 11.770
01-Dec-09 4.237 4.354 1.253 2.100 1.808 5.773 -4.637
01-July-11 -0.716 -1.921 -1.518 -1.496 -1.637 -7.736 7.423
316
Table – 6:6, Summary of Major Events in Hutch Takeover
SR_No Event Date Event Narration
1 12.01.1998 CGP Investments (Holdings) Ltd stood incorporated in Cayman Islands, with limited
liability, as an “exempted company”, its sole shareholder being HTL
VIH agreed to acquire 5.61% shareholding in Bharti Televentures Ltd and Vodafone
2 28.10.2005 Mauritius Limited (subsidiary of VIH) agreed to acquire 4.39% shareholding in Bharti
Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. which indirectly held shares in Bharti Televentures Ltd. (now Bharti
Airtel Ltd.)
3 3.11.2005 Press Note 5 was issued by the Government of India enhancing the FDI ceiling from 49%
to 74% in telecom sector.
Telecom Investments India (TII) Framework and Shareholders Agreements executed
4 1.03.2006 under which the shareholding of HEL was reorganized because of TII, an Indian
company, in which Analjit Singh (AS) and Asim Ghosh (AG) acquired shares through
their Group companies.
The shareholding of HEL again experienced a modification through execution of 2006
5 7.08.2006 IDFC Framework Agreement with the Hinduja Group exiting and its equity shareholding
being acquired by SMMS Investments Private Limited (SMMS), an Indian company
6 22.12.2006 Open Offer was made by Vodafone Group Plc. on behalf of Vodafone Group to Hutchison
Whampoa Ltd
7 25.12.2006 An offer came from Essar Group to acquire HTIL‘s 66.99% shareholding.
The Board of Directors of VIH was held approving the proposal of a binding offer for
8 31.01.2007 67% of HTIL‘s interest at 100% enterprise value of US $17.5 billion by way of
acquisition.
9 9.02.2007 Vodafone Group made revised offer on behalf of VIH to HTIL. The said revised offer was
of US $10.708 billion for 66.98% interest
10 9.02.2007 Bharti expressed no objection to the proposal made by Vodafone Group to acquire a direct
or indirect interest in HEL from the Hutchison Group and/ or Essar Group.
11 10.02.2007 A re-revised offer was presented by Vodafone offering US $11.076 billion for HTIL‘s
interest in HEL
12 11.02.2007 VIH and HTIL entered into an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Share
13 12.02.2007 Vodafone made public announcement to Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington and on London Stock Exchange
14 20.02.2007 VIH applied for approval to FIPB.
Essar objected with FIPB to HTIL‘s proposed stating that consent was not taken by VIH
15 6.03.2007 and HTIL. However, HEL was a joint venture Indian company between Essar and
Hutchison Group since May, 2000
16 14.03.2007 Essar gave its consent
17 15.03.2007 A Settlement Agreement was signed between HTIL and Essar Group. Under the said
Agreement, HTIL agreed to pay $415 million to Essar ltd
18 21.03.2007 VIH reduced its stake in Bharti by 5.61%.
19 5.04.2007 HEL wrote to the Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) stating that HEL
had no tax liabilities accumulating out of Vodafone deal
20 7.05.2007 FIPB gave its approval to the transaction
21 8.05.2007 Vodafone acquisition of Hutch completed
22 1.12.2009 Mr. Analjit Singh and Mr. Asim Ghosh sold their equity shares to Vodafone
23 1.07.2011 Vodafone group agreed to buy-out of remaining equity shares Essar
317
Vodafone
Equity Price Equity Price Abnormal
SR_No Event No. Date CAR
(Open) (Close) Returns
1 8/15/2006 110.625 111.25 -0.573 0.000
2 8/16/2006 110.375 110 -0.145 -0.719
3 8/17/2006 110.375 110.5 -0.522 -1.241
4 8/18/2006 110 110 -0.252 -1.493
5 8/21/2006 110 110 0.338 -1.155
6 8/22/2006 110.5 110.5 0.242 -0.913
7 8/23/2006 110.375 110.5 0.282 -0.632
8 8/24/2006 110.5 110.75 1.071 0.440
9 8/25/2006 112 112.25 0.825 1.265
10 8/29/2006 113.25 113.5 0.428 1.693
11 8/30/2006 114.375 115 -0.387 1.306
12 8/31/2006 114.25 113.75 -0.076 1.229
13 9/1/2006 114.5 114.75 -0.929 0.301
14 9/4/2006 114.375 114 -0.076 0.225
15 9/5/2006 114.75 114.5 0.149 0.374
16 9/6/2006 114.5 114.25 -0.370 0.004
17 9/7/2006 113 112.5 0.532 0.537
18 9/8/2006 113.25 113.5 1.375 1.912
19 9/11/2006 114.875 114.75 0.823 2.735
20 9/12/2006 116.125 117.5 0.807 3.542
21 9/13/2006 117.625 118 -0.177 3.365
22 9/14/2006 117.375 116.5 -0.950 2.415
23 9/15/2006 116.25 116.25 -0.452 1.963
24 9/18/2006 116 116.25 -0.484 1.479
25 9/19/2006 115.125 114.25 -0.565 0.913
26 9/20/2006 114.375 114.5 0.291 1.205
27 9/21/2006 115.5 116.25 -0.066 1.139
28 9/22/2006 115.125 115 0.845 1.985
29 9/25/2006 115.25 115.5 1.485 3.469
30 9/26/2006 117.625 119 1.057 4.527
31 9/27/2006 120.375 121.5 -0.141 4.385
32 9/28/2006 121.375 122 0.127 4.512
33 9/29/2006 122 122.25 -0.622 3.890
34 10/2/2006 121.25 120.75 -0.023 3.867
35 10/3/2006 121.125 122.25 3.207 7.074
36 10/4/2006 125.25 127.25 0.793 7.867
37 10/5/2006 127.125 126.25 -1.404 6.463
38 10/6/2006 125.875 126.25 -0.349 6.115
39 10/9/2006 125.875 126 1.055 7.170
40 10/10/2006 128.125 129.25 0.882 8.051
41 10/11/2006 129.875 130.25 -0.245 7.806
42 10/12/2006 130.25 130 -0.540 7.266
43 10/13/2006 130.625 130.75 -0.741 6.525
44 10/16/2006 130.375 130 -0.773 5.751
45 10/17/2006 129 128.5 -0.231 5.521
46 10/18/2006 128.625 128.75 -0.714 4.807
318
Vodafone
47 10/19/2006 128.375 128.75 0.031 4.838

48 10/20/2006 128.625 128.5 0.375 5.213
49 10/23/2006 129.375 129.5 -0.254 4.959
50 10/24/2006 129.5 130 0.536 5.495
51 10/25/2006 130.875 131.5 1.099 6.594
52 10/26/2006 132.5 132.75 1.358 7.952
53 10/27/2006 133.875 134.25 -0.389 7.563
54 10/30/2006 132.875 134 1.458 9.021
55 10/31/2006 134.625 135 0.243 9.263
56 11/1/2006 135.375 135.5 -0.199 9.064
57 11/2/2006 135.5 135.5 -0.757 8.308
58 11/3/2006 134.625 134 -0.750 7.557
59 11/6/2006 134.625 134.5 -1.382 6.175
60 11/7/2006 134 133 -1.642 4.533
61 11/8/2006 132.125 132 0.736 5.269
62 11/9/2006 133.125 134 0.876 6.145
63 11/10/2006 134.125 134.5 1.018 7.163
64 11/13/2006 135.25 136 2.088 9.250
65 11/14/2006 138 135.5 -0.050 9.200
66 11/15/2006 138.5 139 -0.406 8.794
67 11/16/2006 138.875 139.25 -0.358 8.436
68 11/17/2006 138.125 137.5 -0.258 8.178
69 11/20/2006 137.375 137.75 -0.027 8.151
70 11/21/2006 137.625 137.25 -1.853 6.298
71 11/22/2006 134.75 133.5 0.295 6.593
72 11/23/2006 134.625 135 0.840 7.433
73 11/24/2006 135.5 135.75 -0.307 7.126
74 11/27/2006 134.25 133.25 -0.351 6.775
75 11/28/2006 132.875 132.75 0.532 7.307
76 11/29/2006 134.125 134.5 -0.127 7.180
77 11/30/2006 134.375 134.5 -0.252 6.928
78 12/1/2006 133.5 132.5 0.238 7.167
79 12/4/2006 134 135 1.854 9.021
80 12/5/2006 137.375 138.25 -0.454 8.567
81 12/6/2006 137.375 136.5 -0.951 7.616
82 12/7/2006 136.75 137.25 0.005 7.622
83 12/8/2006 137.625 138.25 0.372 7.993
84 12/11/2006 138.625 138.25 0.476 8.469
85 12/12/2006 139.5 141 1.492 9.961
86 12/13/2006 142.125 143.5 0.700 10.661
87 12/14/2006 144.125 144.75 0.197 10.858
88 12/15/2006 145.375 146 -0.193 10.665
89 12/18/2006 145.5 145.25 -0.101 10.564
90 12/19/2006 144.875 144.75 0.876 11.440
91 12/20/2006 145.75 146 -0.902 10.538
92 12/21/2006 144.375 143.75 -1.265 9.273
319
Vodafone
93 12/22/2006 142.625 142 -0.711 8.562

94 12/27/2006 142.5 143 -0.535 8.027
95 12/28/2006 142.5 142 -0.540 7.487
96 12/29/2006 141.625 141.5 -0.071 7.416
97 1/2/2007 142.5 143.75 0.579 7.995
98 1/3/2007 144.625 145.25 1.191 9.187
99 1/4/2007 146.25 148.25 1.266 10.453
100 1/5/2007 147.125 146 0.370 10.822
101 1/8/2007 146.75 147.5 1.350 12.172
102 1/9/2007 148.625 149.5 -0.523 11.649
103 1/10/2007 147.625 145.75 -0.400 11.249
104 1/11/2007 147.625 149 0.257 11.506
105 1/12/2007 149.125 149.25 -0.141 11.364
106 1/15/2007 149.5 149.75 -0.270 11.095
107 1/16/2007 149 148.5 0.437 11.532
108 1/17/2007 149.125 149.25 -0.498 11.034
109 1/18/2007 148.5 147.75 -0.641 10.394
110 1/19/2007 148.125 148.25 0.993 11.387
111 1/22/2007 149.875 149.25 -0.462 10.925
112 1/23/2007 149.25 149.25 -0.568 10.357
113 1/24/2007 149.75 150.25 0.377 10.734
114 1/25/2007 151 150 -0.670 10.064
115 1/26/2007 149.125 149 -0.556 9.508
116 1/29/2007 148.125 149 -0.573 8.934
117 1/30/2007 147.625 147 1.106 10.040
118 1/31/2007 149 148 0.139 10.179
119 2/1/2007 149.875 150.25 -1.660 8.519
120 2/2/2007 148.875 148 -0.828 7.691
121 2/5/2007 148.25 148.75 0.101 7.792
122 2/6/2007 149 149 0.054 7.846
123 2/7/2007 149.875 150.75 0.377 8.223
124 2/8/2007 150.625 150.5 -0.726 7.496
125 2/9/2007 149.875 149.25 -0.123 7.374
126 1 2/11/2007 149.875 149.25 0.655 8.029
127 2/12/2007 151.125 151.25 -0.115 7.914
128 2/13/2007 151.125 150 -1.072 6.842
129 2/14/2007 150.5 150.5 -0.694 6.148
130 2/15/2007 150.25 149.75 -0.692 5.456
131 2/16/2007 149.375 149.25 0.543 6.000
132 2/19/2007 150.5 150.75 0.349 6.348
133 2/20/2007 151.125 150.5 -1.010 5.338
134 2/21/2007 148.75 147 -1.052 4.286
135 2/22/2007 147 146.25 -0.899 3.387
136 2/23/2007 146.375 146 -0.291 3.097
137 2/26/2007 146.75 147.25 -0.495 2.602
138 2/27/2007 144.875 143.5 -0.455 2.147
320
Vodafone
139 2/28/2007 141.375 141.5 0.545 2.693

140 3/1/2007 140.375 139 -0.649 2.044
141 3/2/2007 139 138.5 -1.449 0.594
142 3/5/2007 136.5 136.75 0.425 1.020
143 3/6/2007 137.5 137 -0.840 0.180
144 3/7/2007 137.625 137.75 0.146 0.326
145 3/8/2007 139 139.75 -0.664 -0.339
146 3/9/2007 139.25 139.5 -0.078 -0.417
147 3/12/2007 139.375 139 0.107 -0.310
148 3/13/2007 138.75 138 -1.296 -1.606
149 3/14/2007 134.5 134 1.596 -0.010
150 3/15/2007 136.5 137 -0.194 -0.203
151 3/16/2007 137.875 139.25 1.718 1.515
152 3/19/2007 141.05 142.1 0.243 1.758
153 3/20/2007 142.6 142.4 -0.705 1.053
154 3/21/2007 142.55 143 0.281 1.334
155 3/22/2007 144.25 143.5 -2.102 -0.768
156 3/23/2007 142.35 141.3 -0.934 -1.701
157 3/26/2007 140.9 140 0.321 -1.380
158 3/27/2007 141 140.7 -0.492 -1.873
159 3/28/2007 140.2 140.2 0.230 -1.642
160 3/29/2007 141.05 141.6 -2.647 -4.289
161 3/30/2007 137.95 135.5 -1.141 -5.430
162 4/2/2007 136.45 136.6 0.476 -4.954
163 4/3/2007 137.9 138.2 -0.731 -5.685
164 4/4/2007 137.6 137.2 -0.769 -6.454
165 4/5/2007 137.05 136.7 0.224 -6.230
166 4/10/2007 138.1 138.2 0.114 -6.117
167 4/11/2007 138.6 138.5 -0.076 -6.192
168 4/12/2007 138.65 138.3 -0.725 -6.917
169 4/13/2007 138.35 138.5 0.109 -6.808
170 4/16/2007 139.75 139.6 -0.111 -6.920
171 4/17/2007 140.15 140.3 -0.212 -7.132
172 4/18/2007 139.3 138.7 0.358 -6.774
173 4/19/2007 139.35 140.3 1.523 -5.251
174 4/20/2007 142.05 143.1 0.769 -4.482
175 4/23/2007 143.75 142.8 -0.478 -4.960
176 4/24/2007 142.6 141.8 -0.370 -5.329
177 4/25/2007 142.05 141.8 0.269 -5.060
178 4/26/2007 143.05 143.2 0.214 -4.846
179 4/27/2007 143.05 142.9 0.175 -4.671
180 4/30/2007 143.25 143.5 -0.025 -4.696
181 5/1/2007 143.4 143.3 0.054 -4.642
182 5/2/2007 144.05 144 -1.045 -5.688
183 5/3/2007 144.05 143.5 -0.975 -6.663
184 5/4/2007 144.15 144.8 0.162 -6.501
321
Vodafone
185 2 5/8/2007 144.7 143.4 -0.814 -7.315

186 5/9/2007 143.1 141.5 -0.794 -8.109
187 5/10/2007 141.85 141.7 -0.282 -8.391
188 5/11/2007 141.8 142.1 0.094 -8.297
189 5/14/2007 142.45 142.5 0.346 -7.951
190 5/15/2007 143.15 143.8 -0.293 -8.244
191 5/16/2007 142.95 142.8 -0.030 -8.274
192 5/17/2007 143.2 142.7 -0.188 -8.462
193 5/18/2007 144 145 0.411 -8.051
194 5/21/2007 145.4 145.4 -0.103 -8.154
195 5/22/2007 145.05 144.6 1.721 -6.433
196 5/23/2007 147.5 149.9 2.564 -3.869
197 5/24/2007 151 152 0.493 -3.376
198 5/25/2007 151.4 151.4 3.690 0.314
199 5/29/2007 157.65 159.7 0.651 0.965
200 5/30/2007 159.25 160 0.360 1.325
201 5/31/2007 160.2 158 -2.064 -0.739
202 6/1/2007 158 158 1.990 1.251
203 6/4/2007 161.85 161.7 1.012 2.263
204 6/5/2007 163.15 161.3 -3.311 -1.048
205 6/6/2007 156.2 155.1 2.776 1.727
206 6/7/2007 159.2 158.4 -0.395 1.332
207 6/8/2007 158.55 159.9 -0.511 0.821
208 6/11/2007 158.7 157.9 -0.682 0.139
209 6/12/2007 158 157 -0.189 -0.049
210 6/13/2007 157.8 158.2 0.686 0.637
211 6/14/2007 160.65 162.3 -0.071 0.566
212 6/15/2007 162.85 163.2 -0.710 -0.145
213 6/18/2007 162.55 162 -0.921 -1.066
214 6/19/2007 160.25 158.9 -0.494 -1.560
215 6/20/2007 159 158.9 -0.907 -2.468
216 6/21/2007 157.1 156.7 0.054 -2.413
217 6/22/2007 156.4 156 -0.129 -2.542
218 6/25/2007 156.3 157.6 1.411 -1.131
219 6/26/2007 158.6 160 2.455 1.324
220 6/27/2007 161.95 163.8 2.193 3.517
221 6/28/2007 165.85 166.2 -0.107 3.410
222 6/29/2007 166.9 167.8 -0.540 2.870
223 7/2/2007 166.45 165 -0.667 2.204
224 7/3/2007 165.95 165.8 -0.871 1.332
225 7/4/2007 165.75 166.1 -1.415 -0.083
226 7/5/2007 163.55 162.1 -0.741 -0.824
227 7/6/2007 162.75 163.5 1.104 0.280
228 7/9/2007 165.7 167 -0.312 -0.031
229 7/10/2007 164.65 162.6 -1.572 -1.604
230 7/11/2007 161.05 161.1 -0.041 -1.645
322
Vodafone
231 7/12/2007 162 162.4 0.250 -1.394

232 7/13/2007 163.85 163.2 -0.397 -1.792
233 7/16/2007 163.4 162.2 -0.180 -1.971
234 7/17/2007 162.6 162.7 -0.706 -2.678
235 7/18/2007 160.05 159.1 1.208 -1.469
236 7/19/2007 161.95 161.9 -0.292 -1.761
237 7/20/2007 161.9 160.8 -0.527 -2.288
238 7/23/2007 161.05 160.6 -1.419 -3.708
239 7/24/2007 157.9 156 -0.400 -4.108
240 7/25/2007 155.4 156.3 0.193 -3.915
241 7/26/2007 152.9 149.3 -0.549 -4.464
242 7/27/2007 149.35 151.2 0.376 -4.088
243 7/30/2007 149.55 148.1 -1.097 -5.185
244 7/31/2007 149.85 150 -0.947 -6.132
245 8/1/2007 149.15 150.4 3.774 -2.358
246 8/2/2007 154.25 156.6 1.644 -0.714
247 8/3/2007 156.65 156 0.261 -0.453
248 8/6/2007 155.85 154.7 0.443 -0.010
249 8/7/2007 157.8 159.4 0.666 0.656
250 8/8/2007 161.65 162.8 -0.722 -0.065
251 8/9/2007 160.2 160.3 -0.790 -0.855
252 8/10/2007 154.6 151.7 0.984 0.128
253 8/13/2007 155.65 158.3 0.169 0.297
254 8/14/2007 157.45 158.1 0.676 0.973
255 8/15/2007 157.3 157.6 -1.534 -0.561
256 8/16/2007 151.4 149.6 0.290 -0.271
257 8/17/2007 151.45 154.4 0.133 -0.138
258 8/20/2007 154.65 155.3 0.924 0.786
259 8/21/2007 156.55 156.4 -1.190 -0.404
260 8/22/2007 156.4 156 -0.936 -1.339
261 8/23/2007 156.55 156.4 -0.191 -1.530
262 8/24/2007 156.75 157.1 0.231 -1.299
263 8/28/2007 156.1 155 0.532 -0.768
264 8/29/2007 156 157.1 0.287 -0.480
265 8/30/2007 158.05 158.2 -0.538 -1.019
266 8/31/2007 159.6 159.8 -0.014 -1.032
267 9/3/2007 161.1 160.7 -0.616 -1.649
268 9/4/2007 161.25 161.8 -0.359 -2.007
269 9/5/2007 160.3 158.7 0.133 -1.874
270 9/6/2007 159.9 159.4 0.076 -1.798
271 9/7/2007 159.2 159.3 1.038 -0.760
272 9/10/2007 158.75 157.8 0.626 -0.134
273 9/11/2007 161.1 163 0.778 0.644
274 9/12/2007 164.8 166.1 1.214 1.857
275 9/13/2007 168.1 169.7 0.487 2.345
276 9/14/2007 168.9 169.1 0.638 2.983
323
Vodafone
277 9/17/2007 167.75 166.5 -1.237 1.746

278 9/18/2007 165.8 166.4 -0.614 1.133
279 9/19/2007 168.7 168.4 -0.593 0.540
280 9/20/2007 169.85 171 1.022 1.562
281 9/21/2007 171.75 172.5 0.025 1.587
282 9/24/2007 172.5 173 0.575 2.162
283 9/25/2007 172.9 173.3 1.321 3.483
284 9/26/2007 174.95 175.8 0.804 4.286
285 9/27/2007 177.8 178.6 -0.583 3.703
286 9/28/2007 177.45 176.5 -0.192 3.511
287 10/1/2007 177.6 178.7 -0.496 3.015
288 10/2/2007 177.4 175.5 -2.997 0.018
289 10/3/2007 172.7 171.1 -1.908 -1.891
290 10/4/2007 170.25 169.1 -0.560 -2.451
291 10/5/2007 170.3 169.9 -0.832 -3.283
292 10/8/2007 169 168 0.082 -3.201
293 10/9/2007 169.6 171 0.115 -3.086
294 10/10/2007 171.2 171 1.559 -1.526
295 10/11/2007 175.5 179.5 0.878 -0.648
296 10/12/2007 178.55 179.3 -0.056 -0.704
297 10/15/2007 177.6 176.3 -1.498 -2.202
298 10/16/2007 173.6 173.6 0.403 -1.800
299 10/17/2007 174.95 175.5 0.057 -1.742
300 10/18/2007 175.2 175 0.670 -1.072
301 10/19/2007 174.6 175 1.916 0.844
302 10/22/2007 176.15 179.7 1.773 2.617
303 10/23/2007 179.3 177.6 -0.885 1.733
304 10/24/2007 178.25 178.2 3.518 5.250
305 10/25/2007 185.6 189.7 1.700 6.950
306 10/26/2007 191.55 193.6 -0.353 6.597
307 10/29/2007 193 194 -1.064 5.533
308 10/30/2007 191.15 189.8 -0.920 4.613
309 10/31/2007 189.85 189 -1.628 2.985
310 11/1/2007 185.95 183.6 0.005 2.990
311 11/2/2007 183.5 184 2.279 5.269
312 6/4/2009 113.05 112.5 -0.857 4.412
313 6/5/2009 112.575 112.6 0.272 4.683
314 6/8/2009 113.075 113.1 1.170 5.853
315 6/9/2009 114.175 114.35 -0.859 4.995
316 6/10/2009 113.5 112 -0.425 4.569
317 6/11/2009 113.525 114.75 0.978 5.547
318 6/12/2009 114.725 114.7 -0.036 5.511
319 6/15/2009 113.635 113.82 0.870 6.381
320 6/16/2009 113.75 114.7 3.115 9.496
321 6/17/2009 116.95 119 2.956 12.451
322 6/18/2009 120.05 122.05 0.193 12.644
324
Vodafone
323 6/19/2009 120.925 119.95 -0.847 11.797

324 6/22/2009 119.54 119.13 -0.567 11.229
325 6/23/2009 117.9 117.8 0.282 11.512
326 6/24/2009 118.685 119.32 -1.165 10.346
327 6/25/2009 117.55 117.1 -0.819 9.527
328 6/26/2009 116.3 115.25 0.232 9.759
329 6/29/2009 116.975 117.6 0.367 10.127
330 6/30/2009 117.525 117.2 0.623 10.750
331 7/1/2009 118.71 119.22 -0.709 10.041
332 7/2/2009 117.79 115.98 -2.077 7.964
333 7/3/2009 114.495 113.64 0.275 8.240
334 7/6/2009 114.525 116.25 1.197 9.437
335 7/7/2009 115.525 114.45 -1.455 7.981
336 7/8/2009 113.42 112.34 1.837 9.818
337 7/9/2009 115.31 114.82 -1.835 7.983
338 7/10/2009 113.13 113.11 0.663 8.647
339 7/13/2009 114.3 115 -2.231 6.416
340 7/14/2009 112.75 112.8 -0.007 6.409
341 7/15/2009 114 114.8 -0.094 6.315
342 7/16/2009 114.975 114.95 -0.782 5.533
343 7/17/2009 114.475 113.2 -1.716 3.817
344 7/20/2009 113.23 112.71 -0.615 3.202
345 7/21/2009 113.325 113.65 0.708 3.911
346 7/22/2009 114.575 114.9 0.717 4.628
347 7/23/2009 116.075 117.1 2.657 7.285
348 7/24/2009 119.875 120.25 0.486 7.771
349 7/27/2009 120.725 120 -0.979 6.793
350 7/28/2009 119.2 118.55 0.181 6.974
351 7/29/2009 119.15 119.05 1.052 8.025
352 7/30/2009 121.3 122.15 -0.005 8.020
353 7/31/2009 121.85 122.1 1.438 9.458
354 8/3/2009 124.075 125.05 0.600 10.058
355 8/4/2009 125.4 125.3 -0.184 9.874
356 8/5/2009 124.925 124.1 -0.331 9.543
357 8/6/2009 124.725 124.45 0.713 10.256
358 8/7/2009 126.375 127.85 1.547 11.803
359 8/10/2009 128.65 128.6 0.319 12.121
360 8/11/2009 128.6 128.2 0.071 12.193
361 8/12/2009 128.7 128.75 -0.255 11.937
362 8/13/2009 129.15 129 -0.973 10.965
363 8/14/2009 127.925 126.4 -0.523 10.442
364 8/17/2009 126.375 126.95 1.393 11.835
365 8/18/2009 127.95 127.9 -1.085 10.749
366 8/19/2009 127 127 2.063 12.812
367 8/20/2009 130.275 131.4 -0.115 12.697
368 8/21/2009 131.575 131.5 -0.821 11.877
325
Vodafone
369 8/24/2009 131.75 131.05 0.019 11.896

370 8/25/2009 132.39 133.98 1.134 13.030
371 8/26/2009 133.9 133.4 -0.020 13.010
372 8/27/2009 133.525 133.4 -0.067 12.944
373 8/28/2009 133.65 132.8 -0.266 12.677
374 9/1/2009 132.925 131.95 -0.620 12.058
375 9/2/2009 131.375 130.1 -0.788 11.270
376 9/3/2009 130.2 130.3 1.635 12.905
377 9/4/2009 132.675 133.25 0.484 13.389
378 9/7/2009 134.55 134.5 0.144 13.533
379 9/8/2009 135.625 136.8 0.889 14.422
380 9/9/2009 137.5 138.35 0.721 15.143
381 9/10/2009 138.9 138.25 -0.502 14.641
382 9/11/2009 138.325 137.5 -0.733 13.908
383 9/14/2009 137.64 137.98 0.598 14.506
384 9/15/2009 138.785 139.22 -0.039 14.467
385 9/16/2009 139.7 139.5 -0.186 14.281
386 9/17/2009 140.55 140.3 -0.411 13.870
387 9/18/2009 140.45 140.4 -0.219 13.651
388 9/21/2009 139.95 139.9 0.656 14.307
389 9/22/2009 140.67 141.34 1.221 15.528
390 9/23/2009 142.49 142.73 0.677 16.204
391 9/24/2009 142.965 142.93 -0.055 16.149
392 9/25/2009 142.445 142.39 -0.793 15.356
393 9/28/2009 142.135 142.67 0.201 15.557
394 9/29/2009 143.155 142.01 -1.540 14.017
395 9/30/2009 140.735 140.47 0.678 14.695
396 10/1/2009 140.79 141.68 -0.665 14.030
397 10/2/2009 138.655 138.36 0.479 14.509
398 10/5/2009 139.175 140.05 -0.367 14.143
399 10/6/2009 140.025 139.85 -1.829 12.314
400 10/7/2009 138.255 137.31 -1.576 10.738
401 10/8/2009 136.275 134.6 -2.480 8.258
402 10/9/2009 133.395 132.99 0.260 8.518
403 10/12/2009 134.25 134.5 -0.033 8.486
404 10/13/2009 134.2 133.7 0.816 9.302
405 10/14/2009 135.725 135.45 -0.255 9.047
406 10/15/2009 136 136.05 0.054 9.101
407 10/16/2009 135.595 134.34 -1.626 7.474
408 10/19/2009 133.925 134.2 -0.100 7.375
409 10/20/2009 134.275 133.55 0.545 7.919
410 10/21/2009 134.875 134.9 1.692 9.612
411 10/22/2009 136.925 139.5 1.455 11.067
412 10/23/2009 138.85 137.5 -1.317 9.750
413 10/26/2009 136.95 136.4 0.207 9.957
414 10/27/2009 136.95 137.8 1.122 11.079
326
Vodafone
415 10/28/2009 137.625 138.25 0.598 11.677

416 10/29/2009 137.975 138.95 -0.964 10.713
417 10/30/2009 136.4 134.55 -0.967 9.746
418 11/2/2009 134.86 135.57 -0.005 9.741
419 11/3/2009 134.85 134.2 0.400 10.141
420 11/4/2009 135.475 136 0.597 10.738
421 11/5/2009 137.075 137.45 -0.644 10.094
422 11/6/2009 136.55 135.8 0.313 10.408
423 11/9/2009 137.95 137.95 -2.113 8.294
424 11/10/2009 135.825 135.5 -0.434 7.860
425 11/11/2009 135.55 134.1 -0.760 7.100
426 11/12/2009 134.95 135.8 1.338 8.437
427 11/13/2009 137.05 137.1 0.112 8.549
428 11/16/2009 138.125 138.25 0.409 8.958
429 11/17/2009 139.15 138.85 -2.033 6.925
430 11/18/2009 136.05 135.15 -0.521 6.404
431 11/19/2009 134.775 134 0.401 6.805
432 11/20/2009 134.65 134.6 0.511 7.316
433 11/23/2009 136.1 136.7 -0.362 6.954
434 11/24/2009 136.25 136.65 1.169 8.123
435 11/25/2009 137.975 139 0.883 9.006
436 11/26/2009 138.2 137.7 -0.363 8.643
437 11/27/2009 136.78 137.56 0.340 8.983
438 11/30/2009 137.275 137.1 0.924 9.907
439 3 12/1/2009 139.15 140 1.136 11.042
440 12/2/2009 141.925 143.05 0.041 11.083
441 12/3/2009 142.05 140.25 -0.541 10.542
442 12/4/2009 141.3 142.4 0.272 10.814
443 12/7/2009 141.725 141.05 -0.216 10.598
444 12/8/2009 140.65 139.9 0.479 11.077
445 12/9/2009 140.49 141.78 -0.003 11.074
446 12/10/2009 140.725 140.95 0.233 11.307
447 12/11/2009 141.6 141.55 -0.148 11.159
448 12/14/2009 142.05 142.45 -0.309 10.850
449 12/15/2009 141.875 140.85 -0.477 10.372
450 12/16/2009 141.3 142 -0.135 10.238
451 12/17/2009 140.6 139.9 0.408 10.645
452 12/18/2009 140.2 140 -0.253 10.393
453 12/21/2009 140.55 141.6 0.521 10.913
454 12/22/2009 142.45 142.4 -0.137 10.777
455 12/23/2009 142.975 142.7 -1.419 9.358
456 12/24/2009 141.625 142.15 1.414 10.772
457 12/29/2009 144.225 143.8 -0.693 10.079
458 12/30/2009 143.25 143.45 0.694 10.773
459 12/31/2009 144.1 143.7 -1.088 9.685
460 1/4/2010 143.45 143.3 -0.951 8.734
327
Vodafone
461 1/5/2010 143.05 143.1 -0.281 8.453

462 1/6/2010 142.95 142.5 -2.200 6.253
463 1/7/2010 139.9 138.8 -1.460 4.793
464 1/8/2010 137.95 137 -0.234 4.559
465 1/11/2010 137.775 137.85 0.322 4.880
466 1/12/2010 138 137.75 0.107 4.987
467 1/13/2010 137.7 137.9 0.106 5.093
468 1/14/2010 137.9 136.8 -1.897 3.196
469 1/15/2010 135.2 134.7 -0.335 2.861
470 1/18/2010 134.775 135.6 1.018 3.879
471 1/19/2010 136.65 137.3 0.212 4.091
472 1/20/2010 136.425 135.95 0.648 4.739
473 1/21/2010 135.975 135.25 0.111 4.850
474 1/22/2010 135.25 135.5 -0.637 4.213
475 1/25/2010 133.85 133.5 -0.018 4.195
476 1/26/2010 133.675 134.85 1.035 5.230
477 1/27/2010 134.775 134.8 0.111 5.341
478 1/28/2010 133.925 132.6 -0.222 5.119
479 1/29/2010 133.45 134.55 0.408 5.527
480 2/1/2010 134.875 135.7 -0.390 5.137
481 2/2/2010 135.175 135.35 -0.058 5.079
482 2/3/2010 135.2 134.5 3.736 8.815
483 2/4/2010 139.15 139.3 1.315 10.130
484 2/5/2010 139.425 139.2 0.210 10.341
485 2/8/2010 139.375 139.25 -0.967 9.374
486 2/9/2010 138.525 138.25 -0.521 8.853
487 2/10/2010 138.2 138.6 -0.365 8.488
488 2/11/2010 138.175 137.95 0.364 8.852
489 2/12/2010 138.825 139 0.281 9.133
490 2/15/2010 139.325 138.85 -0.660 8.472
491 2/16/2010 139.325 139.35 -0.430 8.042
492 2/17/2010 139.7 139.85 0.226 8.268
493 2/18/2010 140.75 141.65 0.168 8.436
494 2/19/2010 141.725 142.4 -0.113 8.323
495 2/22/2010 141.85 141.2 -0.707 7.616
496 2/23/2010 140.55 140 0.189 7.805
497 2/24/2010 140.8 141 0.903 8.708
498 2/25/2010 141.825 142.3 -0.005 8.703
499 2/26/2010 141.975 141.45 -0.144 8.559
500 3/1/2010 142.9 142.8 0.322 8.880
501 3/2/2010 144.5 145.75 1.474 10.354
502 3/3/2010 147.75 148 -0.254 10.100
503 3/4/2010 147.8 147.6 -0.555 9.544
504 3/5/2010 147.6 147.65 -0.287 9.257
505 3/8/2010 147.9 148.15 0.484 9.742
506 3/9/2010 148.7 148.4 -0.283 9.459
328
Vodafone
507 3/10/2010 148.625 149.05 0.563 10.022

508 3/11/2010 149.65 149.8 0.976 10.999
509 3/12/2010 151.05 151.6 0.237 11.236
510 3/15/2010 151.275 150.6 -0.790 10.445
511 3/16/2010 150.1 149.3 -0.942 9.503
512 3/17/2010 149.175 148 -1.322 8.181
513 3/18/2010 147.45 147 0.283 8.464
514 3/19/2010 147.975 148.2 0.065 8.529
515 3/22/2010 148.15 147.9 -0.274 8.254
516 3/23/2010 148 148.5 0.296 8.550
517 3/24/2010 148.775 148.55 -1.517 7.033
518 3/25/2010 147.025 147.2 0.006 7.040
519 3/26/2010 147.3 146.7 1.764 8.804
520 3/29/2010 149.825 151.15 1.995 10.799
521 3/30/2010 152.625 152.2 -0.084 10.715
522 3/31/2010 152.3 152 -1.232 9.483
523 4/1/2010 151.1 151.7 -0.877 8.606
524 4/6/2010 150.675 149.65 -1.895 6.711
525 4/7/2010 148.025 147.9 0.123 6.834
526 4/8/2010 147.725 148.45 0.806 7.640
527 4/9/2010 149.05 149.1 -0.145 7.494
528 4/12/2010 149.425 149 -0.728 6.766
529 4/13/2010 148.325 148.65 1.086 7.852
530 4/14/2010 150.15 150.5 0.580 8.432
531 4/15/2010 151.6 152.85 0.536 8.968
532 4/16/2010 152.05 152 -0.552 8.416
533 4/19/2010 150.475 150.05 -0.442 7.974
534 4/20/2010 150.2 150.05 0.265 8.239
535 4/21/2010 150.625 150.4 -0.476 7.763
536 4/22/2010 149 147.9 -0.245 7.518
537 4/23/2010 148.7 148.4 -0.278 7.239
538 4/26/2010 149.075 148.3 -1.583 5.656
539 4/27/2010 145.8 142.9 -1.297 4.360
540 4/28/2010 142.625 142.6 0.841 5.201
541 4/29/2010 144 144.5 1.019 6.220
542 4/30/2010 145.26 145.27 0.543 6.763
543 5/4/2010 144.425 141.95 -1.153 5.609
544 5/5/2010 141.075 140.15 -0.425 5.184
545 5/6/2010 139.3 139.3 -2.230 2.954
546 5/7/2010 134.45 132.9 1.835 4.789
547 5/10/2010 138 137.5 -2.082 2.707
548 5/11/2010 136.925 136.85 0.017 2.724
549 5/12/2010 136.975 137.95 0.489 3.213
550 5/13/2010 138.5 138 -0.607 2.606
551 5/14/2010 136.75 134.5 -0.191 2.415
552 5/17/2010 135.175 136.35 1.468 3.883
329
Vodafone
553 5/18/2010 137.575 136.55 -2.567 1.316

554 5/19/2010 133.25 131 -0.159 1.157
555 5/20/2010 131.225 129.45 -0.450 0.707
556 5/21/2010 129.925 130 0.926 1.633
557 5/24/2010 131.155 130.96 -1.444 0.189
558 5/25/2010 128.325 129.5 3.700 3.890
559 5/26/2010 132.875 133 0.202 4.092
560 5/27/2010 135.325 136.6 1.586 5.678
561 5/28/2010 138.775 139.4 -0.408 5.269
562 1/4/2011 170.085 169.92 0.796 6.065
563 1/5/2011 172.65 175.3 1.803 7.868
564 1/6/2011 175.875 175.7 -0.020 7.848
565 1/7/2011 175.425 174.75 0.981 8.829
566 1/10/2011 176.7 176.8 -1.154 7.675
567 1/11/2011 174.975 173.7 -2.350 5.326
568 1/12/2011 171.7 171 -0.143 5.183
569 1/13/2011 171.6 171.9 0.389 5.572
570 1/14/2011 171.95 171.95 1.461 7.032
571 1/17/2011 174.225 175 1.388 8.420
572 1/18/2011 177.15 178.7 0.369 8.789
573 1/19/2011 177.8 176.6 -1.079 7.710
574 1/20/2011 174.4 172.8 0.797 8.508
575 1/21/2011 175.2 175.7 0.372 8.879
576 1/24/2011 176.55 177.9 1.007 9.887
577 1/25/2011 178.575 179.5 1.102 10.989
578 1/26/2011 180.825 180.65 -0.980 10.009
579 1/27/2011 179.525 179.05 -0.159 9.850
580 1/28/2011 178.575 178.15 -0.903 8.947
581 1/31/2011 176.175 175.35 -0.245 8.702
582 2/1/2011 176.45 177 0.193 8.896
583 2/2/2011 178 177.1 -1.000 7.895
584 2/3/2011 176.5 177 1.163 9.058
585 2/4/2011 178.6 179.5 -0.438 8.621
586 2/7/2011 178.45 177.55 -0.557 8.064
587 2/8/2011 178.3 179.6 0.880 8.944
588 2/9/2011 179.95 180.1 0.635 9.579
589 2/10/2011 180.575 180.65 -0.406 9.173
590 2/11/2011 180 180 0.054 9.227
591 2/14/2011 180.5 179.9 -0.655 8.572
592 2/15/2011 179.175 179.55 0.152 8.724
593 2/16/2011 179.725 180.8 0.926 9.650
594 2/17/2011 181.875 180.75 -0.345 9.305
595 2/18/2011 181.3 181.7 -0.341 8.964
596 2/21/2011 180.15 179.5 -0.544 8.420
597 2/22/2011 178.525 178.4 -0.988 7.431
598 2/23/2011 176.075 175.65 -1.242 6.189
330
Vodafone
599 2/24/2011 173.325 173.25 -0.303 5.886

600 2/25/2011 173.5 174.7 -0.111 5.775
601 2/28/2011 173.975 174.3 0.839 6.614
602 3/1/2011 174.975 174.45 0.030 6.644
603 3/2/2011 174.45 175.85 1.928 8.572
604 3/3/2011 178.45 180.75 0.449 9.021
605 3/4/2011 179.95 178.9 -0.922 8.099
606 3/7/2011 178.1 178.7 1.434 9.534
607 3/8/2011 180.595 181.79 0.328 9.861
608 3/9/2011 180.95 180.2 -0.567 9.294
609 3/10/2011 178.9 178.65 0.066 9.360
610 3/11/2011 178.17 178.39 -0.477 8.884
611 3/14/2011 176.795 175.74 -2.748 6.136
612 3/15/2011 170.875 171.75 0.583 6.719
613 3/16/2011 170.47 169.39 -0.512 6.207
614 3/17/2011 169.67 170.74 -0.156 6.051
615 3/18/2011 170.475 169.95 2.763 8.814
616 3/21/2011 176 176 -0.823 7.991
617 3/22/2011 175 174.5 -0.486 7.505
618 3/23/2011 174.3 174.6 -0.264 7.241
619 3/24/2011 174.9 175.8 0.390 7.631
620 3/25/2011 176.525 176.55 -0.023 7.607
621 3/28/2011 176.75 177.8 1.567 9.174
622 3/29/2011 179.85 181 0.036 9.210
623 3/30/2011 180.355 179.01 -1.138 8.072
624 3/31/2011 178.175 176.5 -0.370 7.701
625 4/1/2011 178.1 179.1 0.901 8.603
626 4/4/2011 180.675 178.85 -2.116 6.487
627 4/5/2011 176.9 176.15 0.118 6.605
628 4/6/2011 177.375 177.75 0.213 6.818
629 4/7/2011 177.825 177.5 -0.149 6.669
630 4/8/2011 177.75 176.5 -1.180 5.489
631 4/11/2011 176.1 176.95 0.395 5.884
632 4/12/2011 176.125 175.5 0.330 6.215
633 4/13/2011 176.425 176.55 -0.305 5.910
634 4/14/2011 175.95 175.45 0.696 6.605
635 4/15/2011 177.125 178.25 0.171 6.777
636 4/18/2011 176.725 174.6 -0.437 6.339
637 4/19/2011 175.2 174.6 -0.060 6.280
638 4/20/2011 176.425 177 -3.695 2.584
639 4/21/2011 170.975 169.05 0.240 2.825
640 4/26/2011 171.825 172.95 0.619 3.443
641 4/27/2011 173.35 173 -0.878 2.565
642 4/28/2011 171.9 171.6 0.650 3.215
643 5/3/2011 173.2 172.3 -1.667 1.548
644 5/4/2011 169.7 169.3 0.786 2.334
331
Vodafone
645 5/5/2011 169.825 169.25 -0.991 1.343

646 5/6/2011 168.15 167.6 0.539 1.882
647 5/9/2011 169.3 170.1 0.355 2.237
648 5/10/2011 170.3 169.6 -0.423 1.814
649 5/11/2011 169.91 169.82 -0.791 1.023
650 5/12/2011 168.05 167.75 0.120 1.143
651 5/13/2011 167.925 167.55 -0.118 1.025
652 5/16/2011 167.625 168.25 2.339 3.364
653 5/17/2011 171.1 172 0.123 3.487
654 5/18/2011 171.375 171.45 0.329 3.816
655 5/19/2011 172.775 172.75 0.379 4.195
656 5/20/2011 173.7 173.9 -0.543 3.653
657 5/23/2011 171.85 171.5 0.081 3.734
658 5/24/2011 171.325 171.5 -1.968 1.766
659 5/25/2011 168.3 168.6 -0.280 1.486
660 5/26/2011 168.075 167.45 0.542 2.028
661 5/27/2011 169.6 169.4 -0.833 1.196
662 5/31/2011 169.125 168.95 -3.982 -2.786
663 6/1/2011 162.375 161.55 -0.037 -2.824
664 6/2/2011 161.3 160.85 1.177 -1.647
665 6/3/2011 162.7 163.8 0.395 -1.252
666 6/6/2011 163.525 163.65 -0.054 -1.306
667 6/7/2011 163.575 164.15 -0.530 -1.836
668 6/8/2011 162.35 161.65 -0.554 -2.390
669 6/9/2011 161.45 161.4 -0.995 -3.385
670 6/10/2011 159.575 158.9 0.358 -3.027
671 6/13/2011 159.575 160.2 0.909 -2.118
672 6/14/2011 161.375 160.75 -0.680 -2.798
673 6/15/2011 160.1 159.65 0.292 -2.506
674 6/16/2011 159.825 160 0.033 -2.474
675 6/17/2011 159.725 159.65 0.723 -1.751
676 6/20/2011 160.9 162.3 1.267 -0.484
677 6/21/2011 163.475 164 0.094 -0.390
678 6/22/2011 164.325 164.4 -0.116 -0.505
679 6/23/2011 163.4 163 0.602 0.097
680 6/24/2011 163.85 163.1 -0.762 -0.665
681 6/27/2011 163.05 163.8 -0.107 -0.771
682 6/28/2011 163.49 162.48 -0.711 -1.483
683 6/29/2011 163.45 164.1 0.512 -0.971
684 6/30/2011 165.75 165.3 -1.183 -2.154
685 4 7/1/2011 164.9 164.5 -0.313 -2.467
686 7/4/2011 165 165 0.181 -2.286
687 7/5/2011 165.625 166.3 -0.017 -2.303
688 7/6/2011 165.55 164.8 0.001 -2.302
689 7/7/2011 165.85 166.25 0.319 -1.983
690 7/8/2011 166.35 165.3 -0.752 -2.735
332
Vodafone
691 7/11/2011 164.2 163 -0.476 -3.211

692 7/12/2011 162.55 162.55 -0.461 -3.672
693 7/13/2011 161.69 161.38 -0.841 -4.513
694 7/14/2011 160.225 159.6 -0.507 -5.020
695 7/15/2011 159 159 -0.229 -5.249
696 7/18/2011 157.985 157.25 0.193 -5.055
697 7/19/2011 157.945 158.09 0.727 -4.328
698 7/20/2011 159.925 160.3 0.173 -4.154
699 7/21/2011 161.105 160.96 1.420 -2.735
700 7/22/2011 164.075 164.55 -0.585 -3.320
701 7/25/2011 163.375 162 0.078 -3.242
702 7/26/2011 163.525 164.95 0.849 -2.393
703 7/27/2011 164.45 164.05 0.137 -2.256
704 7/28/2011 164.3 165.4 4.987 2.731
705 7/29/2011 172.235 172.17 0.339 3.069
706 8/1/2011 172.075 169.6 -1.739 1.330
707 8/2/2011 168.35 168.5 1.415 2.746
708 8/3/2011 169.25 170.5 2.080 4.826
709 8/4/2011 170.125 168.3 -1.164 3.662
710 8/5/2011 165.3 165.6 0.447 4.109
711 8/8/2011 163.3 162.55 -1.066 3.043
712 8/9/2011 160.9 161.5 0.421 3.464
713 8/10/2011 161.1 160.2 -0.416 3.049
714 8/11/2011 160.475 161.65 -0.271 2.777
715 8/12/2011 162.85 163.5 1.696 4.474
716 8/15/2011 167.3 167 -0.325 4.149
717 8/16/2011 167.15 167.95 0.239 4.388
718 8/17/2011 167.45 168 -0.628 3.760
719 8/18/2011 164.15 162.45 -0.253 3.507
720 8/19/2011 161.25 159.95 -0.351 3.157
721 8/22/2011 160.775 163 1.791 4.948
722 8/23/2011 164.5 164.65 0.666 5.614
723 8/24/2011 166.65 168 1.197 6.811
724 8/25/2011 168.725 168.5 -3.467 3.343
725 8/26/2011 162.25 161.9 -0.616 2.727
726 8/30/2011 162.525 162.5 -1.809 0.918
727 8/31/2011 161.95 161 -0.266 0.652
728 9/1/2011 162.85 164.4 0.519 1.171
729 9/2/2011 162.9 162.4 -0.533 0.638
730 9/5/2011 159.42 159.84 0.516 1.154
731 9/6/2011 159.15 160.15 1.444 2.597
732 9/7/2011 163.375 163.2 -1.382 1.215
733 9/8/2011 162.775 163.9 0.366 1.581
734 9/9/2011 162.55 162 -1.788 -0.207
735 9/12/2011 157.9 158 1.349 1.143
736 9/13/2011 159.75 160 0.389 1.532
333
Vodafone
737 9/14/2011 161.275 162.3 0.266 1.798

738 9/15/2011 163.175 163.35 -0.187 1.611
739 9/16/2011 164.15 163.9 -0.989 0.621
740 9/19/2011 161.925 161.3 0.649 1.271
741 9/20/2011 163 164 0.377 1.648
742 9/21/2011 163.925 163.3 -1.055 0.593
743 9/22/2011 159.5 159.15 2.362 2.955
744 9/23/2011 161.425 161.6 -0.751 2.204
745 9/26/2011 160.7 162.5 1.687 3.891
746 9/27/2011 165.475 166.2 -0.152 3.738
747 9/28/2011 166.425 166 0.611 4.349
748 9/29/2011 166.65 167.15 0.272 4.621
749 9/30/2011 166.375 166.25 0.555 5.176
750 10/3/2011 166.275 168.55 1.341 6.517
751 10/4/2011 166.9 166.65 0.786 7.304
752 10/5/2011 168.525 168.55 -0.982 6.321
753 10/6/2011 170.175 170.5 -0.235 6.086
754 10/7/2011 171.675 171.35 -0.721 5.365
755 10/10/2011 171.475 172.6 0.020 5.385
756 10/11/2011 172.4 172.5 -0.750 4.635
757 10/12/2011 171.555 171.66 0.399 5.034
758 10/13/2011 172.375 173.6 0.545 5.580
759 10/14/2011 173.6 173.75 -0.008 5.572
760 10/17/2011 173.95 173.4 -0.400 5.172
761 10/18/2011 172.825 172.45 0.310 5.481
762 10/19/2011 173.55 173.55 0.251 5.732
763 10/20/2011 173.825 174.65 0.729 6.461
764 10/21/2011 175.5 175.55 -0.520 5.942
765 10/24/2011 176.125 175.85 -1.119 4.822
766 10/25/2011 174.55 174.1 0.379 5.201
767 10/26/2011 175.325 176.7 0.284 5.485
768 10/27/2011 177.55 177.1 -1.761 3.724
769 10/28/2011 175.8 174.3 -0.705 3.019
770 10/31/2011 173.175 172.85 0.224 3.243
771 11/1/2011 171.225 171.8 1.449 4.692
772 11/2/2011 173.25 173.4 -0.888 3.803
773 11/3/2011 172.875 173.65 0.235 4.038
774 11/4/2011 173.725 172.95 -0.123 3.915
775 11/7/2011 173.275 173 1.100 5.015
776 11/8/2011 175.6 176 1.125 6.141
777 11/9/2011 177.2 176.7 -0.084 6.057
778 11/10/2011 176.025 177.85 1.217 7.274
779 11/11/2011 179 180.05 1.024 8.298
780 11/14/2011 181.575 182.7 -0.174 8.124
781 11/15/2011 181.075 180.6 -3.923 4.201
782 11/16/2011 173.95 173.9 0.106 4.307
334
Vodafone
783 11/17/2011 173.375 173.5 -0.276 4.032

784 11/18/2011 171.675 170.8 -0.329 3.702
785 11/21/2011 169.4 168.8 0.369 4.071
786 11/22/2011 168.7 167.9 -0.975 3.095
787 11/23/2011 166.375 166.3 0.357 3.452
788 11/24/2011 166.325 166 -0.429 3.023
789 11/25/2011 165.9 166.35 0.165 3.188
790 11/28/2011 167.9 168.55 -0.211 2.977
791 11/29/2011 169.15 169.8 -0.499 2.478
792 11/30/2011 170.075 172.2 0.487 2.966
793 12/1/2011 172.3 173.15 0.434 3.400
794 12/2/2011 173.525 172.1 -0.609 2.791
795 12/5/2011 173.225 173.05 -0.049 2.742
796 12/6/2011 173.35 174.45 0.384 3.126
797 12/7/2011 173.9 172 -0.232 2.894
798 12/8/2011 172.825 172.45 0.224 3.118
799 12/9/2011 173.125 174.15 0.518 3.636
800 12/12/2011 173.6 173.15 1.182 4.818
801 12/13/2011 175.375 177.2 0.586 5.404
802 12/14/2011 175.925 174.2 -0.264 5.140
803 12/15/2011 174.725 174.95 0.928 6.068
804 12/16/2011 176.6 177.15 -0.831 5.237
805 12/19/2011 174.875 176 -0.692 4.545
806 12/20/2011 174.025 174.3 -0.181 4.364
807 12/21/2011 174 173.05 -0.605 3.759
808 12/22/2011 173.35 173.55 0.714 4.473
809 12/23/2011 175.75 176.3 0.559 5.031
810 12/28/2011 177.25 176.5 0.238 5.269
335
CASE - 3
MERGER OF RIL AND BHARTI AXA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
Reliance Industries: The Reliance Group, established by Dhirubhai H. Ambani, is

India's largest private sector enterprise, with businesses in the energy and materials
value chain. Group's annual revenues were in excess of US$ 66 billion52 in the year
2011-2012. It is a Fortune 500 company and is the largest private sector company in
India. Backward vertical integration has been the strategy of the evolution and growth
of Reliance Industries. Started with textiles in the late seventies, it practiced a strategy
of backward vertical integration - in polyester, fibre intermediates, plastics,
petrochemicals, petroleum refining and oil and gas exploration and production.
Overall Operation in 2011-12: Revenue crossed 330000 crores mark ( 3,39,792

crores), net profit crossed 20,000 crores mark ( 20,040 crores), total assets crossed
2,95,000 crores mark ( 2,95,140 crores), and declared dividend of 85%, payout of
2531 crores, unmatched in the Indian Private sector. Turnover increased by 31.4%
compared to 2010-11, export increased by 41.8% compared to 2011 (i.e. 2,08,042
crores), 14% of India‘s total export53.
Bharti-AXA: Bharti AXA Life is a Life Insurance company that was started in 2006
as joint venture between Bharti Enterprise and AXA Asia Pacific Holdings Ltd
(APH). It brings all together strong financial proficiencies of the Paris-headquartered
AXA Group, and Bharti Enterprises - one of India's leading business groups with
interests in telecom, agricultural business, financial services, and retail. The company
started national operations in December 2006. Today, Bharti AXA Life has a
countrywide footprint of distributors trained to provide quality financial advice and
insurance solutions to the large customer base of India.
52
http://www.ril.com/html/aboutus/aboutus.html accessed on 1st June 2012
53
http://www.ril.com/downloads/pdf/PR20042012.pdf accessed 2nd June 2012
336
Since December 2006 to August 2008, have paid over 100,000 claims, sold
over 1 million policies, have 3500+ dedicated agents, 3500 hospital and 2000+ car
garages tie-ups for cashless claims settlement and have more than 150 branches across
India. It differentiates, in comparison to other service providers, through unique
offerings and offer 24x7 claims services to keep in line with motto of Fast, Fair &
Friendly services. It is one of the fastest growing insurance companies in India and
awarded the ―Personal Lines Growth Leadership‖ award at the India Insurance
Review Awards 201154.
First case for the approval of Competition Commission of India (CCI) under
Combination (section 6) was between Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and Reliance
Industrial Infrastructure Limited (RIIL) proposed to acquire 74% share capital of each
in the Joint venture companies i.e. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited
(BAL) and Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited (BAG) from Bharti
Ventures Limited (BVL), Bharti Enterprises Limited (BEL) and Bharti Overseas
Private Limited (BOPL), collectively referred as ―Bharti Entities‖. CCI passed order
on 26th July 2011 and approved combination under the Competition Act, 2002.
On 8th July 2011, CCI received a notice from RIL and RIIL (Acquirers)
relating to a proposed combination under of section 6 (2) of the Competition Act,
2002. The Commission considered the matter in its meeting held on July 26, 2011.
The proposed combination relates to the acquisition of 74% of the share capital each
in the joint venture companies i.e. BAL and BAG (joint venture between Bharti
Entities and AXA SA, headquartered in Paris, France (AXA)) by the Acquirer.
Therefore, the proposed combination falls under section 5(a) of the Competition Act,
2002.
54
http://www.bharti-axagi.co.in/ accessed on 2nd June 2012
337
The acquisition by the Acquirers of the entire 74% share capital held by Bharti
Entities in each of the Acquired Enterprises is pursuant to bidding share purchase
agreement dated 10 June 2011 executed between AXA, Bharti Entities, and RIL
which triggered the filling requirement under section 6(2) of the Competition Act,
2002.
BAL and BAG are joint venture between Bharti Entities and AXA Group of
France in which Bharti Entities directly or indirectly hold 74% shareholding and the
AXA directly or indirectly holds the remaining 26% shareholding. BAL was
incorporated in 2005 while BAG was incorporated in 2007 under Companies Act,
1956. BAL is a Life Insurance company and BAG is a General Insurance company
and both were registered with Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA).
Therefore, in adherence to sub-regulation of Regulation 9(4) of the Combination
Regulations, a single notice was filed with the Commission in relation to both the
transactions.
It was asserted in the notice that according to law, within the period of 4 years
from the date of investment, the acquirers and AXA have agreed to have equal
shareholding in each of the acquired enterprises. RIL and AXA have also issued a
press release dated June 10, 2011 stating therein that on completion of proposed
transaction, RIL and RIIL would effectively own 57% and 17% respectively in each
of the acquired enterprises. It was also specified that an option by which AXA would
acquire from RIL and RIIL up-to 24% shareholding in each of the acquired
enterprises in accordance with the applicable regulations as and when Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) regulations permit such holding by AXA. The Commission was of
the view that such acquisition by AXA at a later stage and is not a part of the present
determination and shall be dealt accordingly as per applicable laws at that time.
338
For the period ending March 2011, market shares (based on the first year
renewal premium) of BAL was 0.29% and for BAG is 1.30%. The top five companies
in the life insurance business in India account for around 87% of market share, 69%
market share acquired by Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) being one of the
key player in insurance business. Similarly, in the general insurance business, the top
5 companies account for around 69% market share. The acquirers do not directly
operate either in life insurance or in general insurance business. BAL and BAG also
do not operate in the business in which the Acquired operate55.
It is also to be noted that one of the subsidiary companies of RIL i.e. Reliance
Retail Insurance Broking Limited (RIB) is registered as a direct broker under IRDA
Regulation 2002. RIB has no broking relationship with BAG but has in the past
engaged a business with BAL. Therefore, there exists a vertical relationship between
RIL and the acquired enterprises. As on 30th June 2011, there were 312 registered
IRDA brokers in India. RIB is a somewhat new participant in the insurance broking
business, it is improbable that RIB as a broker in the downstream market, can pose
any competitive constraint post combination. It is also important to note that IRDA
issued a memorandum on March 18, 2008 on the subject of ―corporate house
promoting insurance broking companies in addition to doing business‖, expecting that
―the broker shall ensure that not more than 25% of the insurance handled by it in any
financial year is placed with the insurance company within the promoter group
separately for life and for general insurance business. The broker shall establish
internal machinery to monitor this on an ongoing basis‖.
55
CCI website, http://www.cci.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=171 accessed
on 01/11/ 11
339
In the light of the above details filled by the Acquirers, it may be inferred that
the Acquirers and the Acquired Enterprises don‘t operate in interchangeable or
substitutable products. It means there is no horizontal overlap as well as no significant
vertical relationship found in the proposed combination which could pose any
competitive constraints in the life and general insurance business as there were many
competitors in the both sectors i.e. life insurance and general insurance and having
due regard to the factors given in section 20 (4) of the Act, the Commission was of the
opinion that the proposed combination is not likely to have an appreciable adverse
effect on competition.
Based on the facts on record and notice filed by the acquirers under subsection
(2) of Section (6) of the Act and the assessment of proposed combination, The
Commission approved the proposed combination as it was not likely to have an
appreciable adverse effect on competition. The approval was without any prejudice to
compliance of any other statutory obligations as applicable and an order shall stand
revoked if, at any stage, the information given in the notice is found to be incorrect.
On 25th November 2011, Bharti Enterprises and Reliance Industries
terminated discussion for the stake sale in Bharti AXA insurance companies due to
differences on long term vision and joint governance issues56.
Analysis of Wealth Effect of key events:
Reliance Group announced to acquire 74% equity share capital of Bharti AXA
Life Insurance from Bharti Enterprises and stock market reaction captured by event
study for RIL is reported in Table – 6:7. CAR of RIL showed negative CAR for all
windows except for CAR (0, +180) i.e. 6.7% profit noticed while loss by 7.8%
56
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-26/news/30444526_1_bharti-axa-life-ceo-
amarnath-ananthanarayanan-insurance-regulator accessed on 10th June 2012
340
showed in window (-180, 0) on 10th June 2011, where RIL announced acquisition of
74% equity share of Bharti AXA Life Insurance from Bharti Enterprise and AXA
SA. However, positive CAR noticed for all windows on 8th July 2011 where RIL and
RIIL given a notice to CCI relating to a proposed combination under sub-section (2)
of section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002.
On 26th July 2011, CCI passed order and approved combination under the
Competition Act, 2002 where positive CAR noticed for CAR (-11, 0), CAR (-11,
+11), CAR (0, +11), CAR (-5, +5) and CAR (0, +180) while negative CAR showed
for CAR (-1, +1) and CAR (-180, 0). On 25th November 2011 when Bharti
Enterprises and Reliance Industries terminated discussion for the stake sale in Bharti
AXA Life Insurance companies due to differences on long team vision and joint
governance issues where negative CAR noticed for all event windows. The Highest
CAR is noticed for CAR (0, +180) on 8th July 2011 where RIL given application to
CCI for approval of acquisition of 74% equity share of Bharti AXA Life Insurance
company while lowest CAR is showed for CAR (-180, 0) on 26th July 2001, where
CCI passed order and approved combination under the Competition Act, 2002.
Conclusion:
After reviewing the case and critically analyzing, it was found that RIL
showed positive CAR in all the event windows during the M & A of Bharti AXA Life
Insurance Company. This event had happened after the establishment of CCI, which
was the monitoring authority for ensuring consumer welfare and restricting
domination in the local market by M & A. The role of CCI in this process is highly
significant.
341
6.3. APPENDIX
Table - 6:7 Presents the Cumulative Abnormal Returns (CAR) of Reliance Industries
Announcement CAR (- CAR (-11, CAR (0, CAR (-1, CAR (-5, CAR (- CAR (0,
Date 11, 0) +11) +11) +1) +5) 180, 0) +180)
10-Jun-11 -0.941 -6.000 -6.170 -0.849 -2.358 -7.855 6.744
08-Jul-11 5.036 16.751 12.899 1.689 8.856 95.653 128.580
26-Jul-11 3.745 10.288 5.713 -1.832 4.149 -14.640 13.809
25-11-11 -3.675 -5.150 -2.103 -1.855 -1.815 -1.207 0.580
Table - 6:8 Summary of Major Events in RIL and Bharti AXA Takeover
Event
SR_No Event Narration
Date
RIL and AXA have issued a press release staring that on
completion of proposed transaction, RIL and RIIL would
1 10.06.2011
effectively own 57% and 17% respectively in each of the
Acquired Enterprises
2 30.06 2011 there were 312 registered IRDA brokers in India
CCI received a notice from RIL and RIIL (Acquirers) relating
3 8.07.2011 to a proposed combination under sub-section (2) of section 6
of the Competition Act, 2002
4 26.07.2011 The Commission considered the matter in its meeting of CCI
Bharti Enterprises and Reliance Industries terminated
5 25.11.2011 discussion for the stake sale in Bharti AXA insurance
companies due to differences on long term vision
342
Reliance

1 12/13/2010 1024.15 1041.8 0.670 0

2 12/14/2010 1044 1052.6 0.742 1.412
3 12/15/2010 1056 1051.9 -0.463 0.950
4 12/16/2010 1052 1055.8 -0.631 0.319
5 12/20/2010 1044.95 1057.45 0.283 0.602
6 12/21/2010 1058.5 1071.45 -0.604 -0.002
7 12/22/2010 1071.3 1057.05 -0.456 -0.458
8 12/23/2010 1056.15 1058.15 0.050 -0.407
9 12/24/2010 1055.9 1059.55 -0.505 -0.912
10 12/27/2010 1058.25 1055.1 -0.604 -1.516
11 12/28/2010 1055.1 1047.15 -0.997 -2.514
12 12/29/2010 1048.95 1048.3 -0.851 -3.365
13 12/30/2010 1051.1 1050.6 -0.118 -3.483
14 12/31/2010 1058.1 1058.25 -0.831 -4.315
15 1/3/2011 1062 1054.15 1.038 -3.276
16 1/4/2011 1060 1076.55 1.415 -1.861
17 1/5/2011 1077.55 1073.9 1.082 -0.780
18 1/6/2011 1079.65 1084 1.058 0.278
19 1/7/2011 1081 1064.9 0.186 0.465
20 1/10/2011 1066 1031.05 -0.943 -0.478
21 1/11/2011 1037.15 1014.3 -1.323 -1.802
22 1/12/2011 1020 1030.6 0.268 -1.534
23 1/13/2011 1030 1015.25 0.299 -1.235
24 1/14/2011 1015.3 1001.15 -0.021 -1.256
25 1/17/2011 1003.9 997.8 -1.019 -2.275
26 1/18/2011 1004.7 994.6 -1.119 -3.394
27 1/19/2011 1000 981.5 -1.170 -4.564
28 1/20/2011 978.45 969.75 0.417 -4.147
29 1/21/2011 975 986.5 -0.376 -4.523
30 1/24/2011 997.45 971.05 -1.527 -6.050
31 1/25/2011 978 958.55 -0.184 -6.233
32 1/27/2011 966.5 943 -0.665 -6.899
33 1/28/2011 945 914.5 -0.019 -6.918
34 1/31/2011 909 919.25 -0.022 -6.940
35 2/1/2011 926 895.65 0.981 -5.959
36 2/2/2011 910 921.4 1.302 -4.658
37 2/3/2011 926 943.5 0.084 -4.574
38 2/4/2011 945.7 919.5 0.290 -4.284
39 2/7/2011 925 929.3 0.639 -3.645
40 2/8/2011 936 915.5 0.244 -3.400
41 2/9/2011 909.45 911.85 0.440 -2.960
42 2/10/2011 914.8 899.75 -0.699 -3.660
43 2/11/2011 901.45 910.6 -2.101 -5.760
44 2/14/2011 910 915.2 0.467 -5.293
45 2/15/2011 913.9 941.75 1.371 -3.922
46 2/16/2011 939.4 944 0.090 -3.832
343
Reliance

47 2/17/2011 947.9 953.5 -0.260 -4.092

48 2/18/2011 955.1 937.35 0.291 -3.801
49 2/21/2011 936.1 956.5 4.387 0.586
50 2/22/2011 991.5 985.05 1.029 1.615
51 2/23/2011 985 996.35 0.895 2.510
52 2/24/2011 995 965.85 -0.046 2.464
53 2/25/2011 977 965.95 -0.865 1.599
54 2/28/2011 971.7 964.95 -1.308 0.291
55 3/1/2011 971.5 988.95 -1.472 -1.181
56 3/3/2011 977 978.4 -0.412 -1.593
57 3/4/2011 984.4 981.75 0.763 -0.830
58 3/7/2011 974.8 976.15 0.188 -0.642
59 3/8/2011 979 984.4 0.077 -0.564
60 3/9/2011 988.5 993.9 0.360 -0.204
61 3/10/2011 992.15 984.45 0.756 0.552
62 3/11/2011 980.7 991.6 1.264 1.816
63 3/14/2011 991.8 1017.65 2.029 3.844
64 3/15/2011 995.25 1036.3 1.654 5.499
65 3/16/2011 1043.5 1044.6 -0.095 5.403
66 3/17/2011 1041 1031.45 -1.424 3.980
67 3/18/2011 1035.9 993.15 -1.120 2.859
68 3/21/2011 1000 988.55 -0.115 2.744
69 3/22/2011 993.75 999.5 0.056 2.800
70 3/23/2011 999.15 1012.65 -0.854 1.946
71 3/24/2011 1014.5 1010.1 -1.179 0.767
72 3/25/2011 1017 1026.05 -1.060 -0.294
73 3/28/2011 1027.05 1023.4 -1.388 -1.681
74 3/29/2011 1021 1022.65 -0.552 -2.234
75 3/30/2011 1025.1 1032.9 0.230 -2.004
76 3/31/2011 1035.65 1047.8 -0.342 -2.346
77 4/1/2011 1048.95 1035.3 -0.761 -3.106
78 4/4/2011 1038.1 1049.85 -0.456 -3.562
79 4/5/2011 1050 1044.95 -0.133 -3.695
80 4/6/2011 1044 1043.85 0.055 -3.639
81 4/7/2011 1045 1040.15 -0.599 -4.238
82 4/8/2011 1041 1024.25 -0.837 -5.075
83 4/11/2011 1018.4 1007.15 -0.896 -5.971
84 4/13/2011 1001.2 1021.7 0.244 -5.727
85 4/15/2011 1021 1018.4 1.121 -4.605
86 4/18/2011 1020 1010.15 0.068 -4.537
87 4/19/2011 1005.9 1011.35 -0.467 -5.005
88 4/20/2011 1015 1025.7 0.180 -4.824
89 4/21/2011 1032 1039.95 -2.247 -7.072
90 4/25/2011 1014.5 1009.1 -0.860 -7.932
91 4/26/2011 1008 1000.75 -0.707 -8.639
92 4/27/2011 1006 985.15 -0.607 -9.246
344
Reliance

93 4/28/2011 993 973.85 0.592 -8.655

94 4/29/2011 975 981.95 0.120 -8.535
95 5/2/2011 983.7 964.7 0.005 -8.529
96 5/3/2011 964.9 943.95 0.551 -7.978
97 5/4/2011 945.1 947 1.206 -6.772
98 5/5/2011 946.7 949.5 0.383 -6.389
99 5/6/2011 955 955.4 -0.702 -7.091
100 5/9/2011 959.45 958.35 -0.064 -7.155
101 5/10/2011 961 951.5 -0.415 -7.569
102 5/11/2011 955 954.7 0.223 -7.347
103 5/12/2011 952.5 944.85 -0.314 -7.661
104 5/13/2011 945 948.65 0.281 -7.380
105 5/16/2011 951.8 944.3 -0.662 -8.042
106 5/17/2011 944.7 920.4 -1.433 -9.475
107 5/18/2011 922.45 901.8 -0.288 -9.763
108 5/19/2011 906.35 914.9 0.232 -9.532
109 5/20/2011 916.05 921.4 0.295 -9.237
110 5/23/2011 919.85 908 0.593 -8.644
111 5/24/2011 910 915.25 0.385 -8.259
112 5/25/2011 913.6 906.8 1.086 -7.173
113 5/26/2011 914.5 933.25 0.540 -6.633
114 5/27/2011 935 946.3 -0.281 -6.914
115 5/30/2011 947 939.7 -0.417 -7.331
116 5/31/2011 940 951.75 -0.843 -8.173
117 6/1/2011 950.5 946.75 0.347 -7.826
118 6/2/2011 940 951.85 0.177 -7.649
119 6/3/2011 960 936.15 -0.835 -8.484
120 6/6/2011 933 938.1 0.818 -7.666
121 6/7/2011 935 956.5 0.502 -7.164
122 6/8/2011 953.5 947.35 0.158 -7.006
123 6/9/2011 946.5 954.1 0.262 -6.744
124 6/10/2011 955 944 -1.111 -7.855
125 6/13/2011 942.9 926.65 -1.699 -9.554
126 6/14/2011 928.8 913.55 -1.176 -10.731
127 6/15/2011 911.1 900.75 -0.112 -10.843
128 6/16/2011 900 888 -1.041 -11.884
129 6/17/2011 894 868.4 -1.423 -13.307
130 6/20/2011 874.5 834.6 -0.201 -13.507
131 6/21/2011 839.85 848.5 0.593 -12.914
132 6/22/2011 854.9 846.1 0.818 -12.096
133 6/23/2011 845.35 870.65 -0.775 -12.871
134 6/24/2011 874.3 870.4 -1.970 -14.841
135 6/27/2011 865 871.5 -0.612 -15.454
136 6/28/2011 877.8 870.55 -0.076 -15.529
137 6/29/2011 874.6 885.3 0.588 -14.942
138 6/30/2011 889.9 897.6 -1.836 -16.778
345
Reliance

139 7/1/2011 900 862.15 -1.013 -17.790

140 7/4/2011 873.95 868.15 -1.151 -18.941
141 7/5/2011 868.3 846.15 -0.353 -19.294
142 7/6/2011 848.15 852.65 0.560 -18.734
143 7/7/2011 858.9 870.35 -0.407 -19.141
144 7/8/2011 871.2 854.4 0.230 -18.911
145 7/11/2011 855 853.2 1.165 -17.745
146 7/12/2011 847.8 848.5 1.013 -16.733
147 7/13/2011 853.7 864.55 0.398 -16.335
148 7/14/2011 863.1 866.9 10.448 -5.887
149 7/15/2011 1040.25 873.3 -8.624 -14.512
150 7/18/2011 872.9 867.1 0.085 -14.427
151 7/19/2011 865.35 879.15 0.771 -13.656
152 7/20/2011 886.1 875.3 -0.428 -14.083
153 7/21/2011 876 860.75 -0.764 -14.848
154 7/22/2011 866.6 873.6 1.045 -13.803
155 7/25/2011 892.9 882.15 -0.209 -14.012
156 7/26/2011 888.5 871.15 -0.035 -14.047
157 7/27/2011 875.75 860.7 -0.987 -15.033
158 7/28/2011 855 837.35 -1.066 -16.099
159 7/29/2011 839.05 827.7 -0.682 -16.781
160 8/1/2011 837 830.9 0.751 -16.030
161 8/2/2011 829.8 835.1 0.876 -15.154
162 8/3/2011 827.95 825.15 0.157 -14.997
163 8/4/2011 829.4 812.5 0.256 -14.741
164 8/5/2011 799.95 791.65 0.334 -14.406
165 8/8/2011 775 780.6 -0.053 -14.459
166 8/9/2011 759.95 765.4 -1.068 -15.527
167 8/10/2011 786.45 771 -0.143 -15.670
168 8/11/2011 766.1 773.4 0.461 -15.208
169 8/12/2011 781.6 760.8 -0.109 -15.317
170 8/16/2011 761.8 759 0.331 -14.986
171 8/17/2011 761.9 754.8 -0.333 -15.319
172 8/18/2011 756.5 739.95 1.279 -14.041
173 8/19/2011 731 731.2 1.548 -12.493
174 8/22/2011 731.2 756.25 1.297 -11.196
175 8/23/2011 761 765.55 0.723 -10.473
176 8/24/2011 765 760.95 0.589 -9.884
177 8/25/2011 762.6 754.3 -1.085 -10.969
178 8/26/2011 752.9 719.5 -0.712 -11.681
179 8/29/2011 730 754.05 1.713 -9.967
180 8/30/2011 763.95 781.5 1.999 -7.968
181 9/2/2011 795.55 805.4 0.433 -7.535
182 9/5/2011 795.9 788.9 1.015 -6.520
183 9/6/2011 784.9 820.85 1.765 -4.755
184 9/7/2011 825 831.7 0.927 -3.828
346
Reliance

185 9/8/2011 833.05 853.5 0.238 -3.590

186 9/9/2011 851.5 825.1 -0.458 -4.048
187 9/12/2011 812.6 805.85 0.655 -3.393
188 9/13/2011 811.6 810.8 0.695 -2.698
189 9/14/2011 814.45 825.3 0.188 -2.510
190 9/15/2011 832.5 835.15 -0.364 -2.874
191 9/16/2011 847.35 827.45 -0.653 -3.528
192 9/19/2011 821 820.85 1.137 -2.390
193 9/20/2011 821.25 851.5 -0.116 -2.507
194 9/21/2011 849.2 838.1 -1.118 -3.625
195 9/22/2011 824.95 786.45 -1.335 -4.959
196 9/23/2011 773.25 770.75 -0.323 -5.282
197 9/26/2011 770.5 759.2 0.996 -4.286
198 9/27/2011 773.7 797.85 1.654 -2.632
199 9/28/2011 814 797 -0.468 -3.100
200 9/29/2011 792 808.1 0.828 -2.272
201 9/30/2011 801.1 808.3 0.658 -1.615
202 10/3/2011 794.4 788.2 0.175 -1.440
203 10/4/2011 785.4 772.4 -0.250 -1.690
204 10/5/2011 773.9 767.25 0.726 -0.964
205 10/7/2011 786 801.45 1.611 0.647
206 10/10/2011 803.25 827.9 0.711 1.358
207 10/11/2011 836 825.85 -0.297 1.061
208 10/12/2011 829 849.5 0.139 1.200
209 10/13/2011 850 846.85 0.801 2.001
210 10/14/2011 841.6 866.8 -1.221 0.781
211 10/17/2011 869 833.2 -1.200 -0.420
212 10/18/2011 825 820 0.113 -0.307
213 10/19/2011 824.9 842.3 0.774 0.467
214 10/20/2011 833.5 838.4 0.533 1.000
215 10/21/2011 839 835.4 0.644 1.644
216 10/24/2011 847.9 846.25 1.031 2.676
217 10/25/2011 853 875 0.186 2.862
218 10/26/2011 877 873.35 -0.156 2.706
219 10/28/2011 897 898 -1.120 1.586
220 10/31/2011 898.6 877.75 -1.050 0.536
221 11/1/2011 869 860.55 0.551 1.087
222 11/2/2011 855 871.45 1.282 2.369
223 11/3/2011 868.45 884.6 0.584 2.953
224 11/4/2011 901.1 879.6 -0.787 2.165
225 11/8/2011 880 881.85 0.144 2.309
226 11/9/2011 890.1 864.55 1.367 3.676
227 11/11/2011 858.9 883.85 1.032 4.709
228 11/14/2011 889.55 875.15 -0.077 4.632
229 11/15/2011 871 862.7 -0.307 4.325
230 11/16/2011 860.3 848.95 -1.624 2.701
347
Reliance

231 11/17/2011 845 810.65 -1.225 1.475

232 11/18/2011 800.05 808.05 0.633 2.108
233 11/21/2011 800.9 786.85 0.393 2.501
234 11/22/2011 786.6 795.05 0.323 2.824
235 11/23/2011 789 773.75 -0.369 2.455
236 11/24/2011 775 774.2 -1.181 1.274
237 11/25/2011 768.9 754 -0.301 0.973
238 11/28/2011 764 783 -0.340 0.633
239 11/29/2011 782.8 765 0.157 0.790
240 11/30/2011 756.6 778.8 0.525 1.315
241 12/1/2011 798.55 798.5 -0.149 1.166
242 12/2/2011 798 810.8 -0.414 0.752
243 12/5/2011 807.65 807.35 -0.075 0.677
244 12/7/2011 807.35 809.2 -0.610 0.067
245 12/8/2011 802.9 779.2 -0.398 -0.332
246 12/9/2011 769.7 755.45 -1.321 -1.653
247 12/12/2011 761.1 727.9 0.244 -1.410
248 12/13/2011 722.5 742.6 0.881 -0.529
249 12/14/2011 737.9 741.7 1.284 0.755
250 12/15/2011 732.3 748.7 0.551 1.307
251 12/16/2011 751.6 723 1.013 2.320
252 12/19/2011 719.9 735.85 0.843 3.163
253 12/20/2011 740 713.55 -0.583 2.580
254 12/21/2011 729 747.25 0.775 3.355
255 12/22/2011 742.05 754.75 -0.269 3.086
256 12/23/2011 759 746.45 -0.043 3.043
257 12/27/2011 765.1 753.25 -0.684 2.359
258 12/28/2011 751.4 738.55 -1.270 1.089
259 12/29/2011 733.9 712.9 -2.012 -0.923
260 12/30/2011 713 692.9 0.056 -0.866
261 1/2/2012 697.9 706.95 0.260 -0.606
262 1/3/2012 712 723.7 -0.335 -0.941
263 1/4/2012 727.9 716 -1.475 -2.416
264 1/5/2012 715.4 699.25 0.566 -1.850
265 1/6/2012 698 716.9 0.853 -0.996
266 1/10/2012 712 735.15 1.599 0.603
267 1/11/2012 738.6 748.35 0.838 1.441
268 1/12/2012 746 737.55 -0.946 0.495
269 1/13/2012 743.9 732.05 -1.982 -1.487
270 1/16/2012 730 713.4 -0.668 -2.155
271 1/17/2012 716.9 740.35 4.932 2.777
272 1/18/2012 762.15 776.9 1.369 4.146
273 1/19/2012 789 785.15 -0.314 3.832
274 1/20/2012 790.6 793.35 -3.251 0.581
275 1/23/2012 756.65 771 0.497 1.078
276 1/24/2012 772.55 783.15 0.369 1.447
348
Reliance

277 1/25/2012 789.9 790.1 1.167 2.615

278 1/27/2012 796.6 817.6 1.429 4.043
279 1/30/2012 815.7 795.45 -0.072 3.971
280 1/31/2012 803.2 815.45 0.787 4.758
281 2/1/2012 819.5 830.3 -0.467 4.292
282 2/2/2012 836.5 828.6 -0.353 3.938
283 2/3/2012 832 837.75 -1.060 2.878
284 2/6/2012 843 832.75 0.647 3.526
285 2/7/2012 841 844.75 1.546 5.072
286 2/8/2012 848 858.05 -0.301 4.771
287 2/9/2012 856.9 852.65 -1.230 3.541
288 2/10/2012 851.9 842.15 -0.077 3.464
289 2/13/2012 842.8 848.15 -0.042 3.421
290 2/14/2012 847 848.15 -2.344 1.077
291 2/15/2012 854.4 836.05 -3.262 -2.184
292 2/16/2012 829.9 812.15 -1.030 -3.215
293 2/17/2012 824 817.9 0.727 -2.488
294 2/21/2012 817.9 841.8 1.691 -0.797
295 2/22/2012 848.9 833.2 0.876 0.079
296 2/23/2012 834 838.1 -0.311 -0.232
297 2/24/2012 834.7 820.35 -1.156 -1.387
298 2/27/2012 821 781.2 -0.405 -1.792
299 2/28/2012 790.7 796.05 1.035 -0.757
300 2/29/2012 805.9 818.65 1.254 0.497
301 3/1/2012 812.7 810.35 0.425 0.922
302 3/2/2012 815 814.35 0.216 1.139
303 3/5/2012 815 797.9 -0.928 0.210
304 3/6/2012 794.7 776.5 -1.242 -1.032
305 3/7/2012 775.65 761.45 -1.198 -2.230
306 3/9/2012 774.9 773.6 0.147 -2.083
307 3/12/2012 789.5 789.5 2.353 0.270
308 3/13/2012 804 818.65 -0.319 -0.049
309 3/14/2012 827.1 814.3 -0.551 -0.600
310 3/15/2012 815.05 798.05 -2.036 -2.637
311 3/16/2012 781 771.95 0.051 -2.586
312 3/19/2012 780 754.9 -0.353 -2.938
313 3/20/2012 757.75 760.4 -0.228 -3.166
314 3/21/2012 760 768.35 -1.593 -4.759
315 3/23/2012 743 744 -0.018 -4.777
316 3/26/2012 744.9 729.8 -0.410 -5.187
317 3/27/2012 737.9 730.7 -0.315 -5.502
318 3/28/2012 730.1 725.95 0.386 -5.116
319 3/29/2012 721 724.85 0.845 -4.270
320 3/30/2012 730 748.25 -0.419 -4.690
321 4/2/2012 750 740.8 -0.402 -5.092
322 4/3/2012 744.7 752.45 0.359 -4.733
349
Reliance

323 4/4/2012 746.5 747.1 0.907 -3.826

324 4/9/2012 740.9 742.6 0.822 -3.004
325 4/10/2012 744 743 -0.312 -3.316
326 4/11/2012 738 732.9 -0.422 -3.738
327 4/12/2012 735 742.9 2.463 -1.276
328 4/13/2012 746 751.25 0.426 -0.850
329 4/16/2012 746.55 748.3 -1.234 -2.084
330 4/17/2012 747.9 746.4 -0.524 -2.608
331 4/18/2012 750.5 749.35 -0.698 -3.306
332 4/19/2012 751.1 741.75 -1.010 -4.316
333 4/20/2012 739 731.45 1.008 -3.307
334 4/23/2012 726.6 736.1 1.062 -2.246
335 4/24/2012 737.05 734.7 0.124 -2.122
336 4/25/2012 736 736.35 1.118 -1.003
337 4/26/2012 738.4 745.45 0.433 -0.570
338 4/27/2012 744 742.1 -0.858 -1.428
339 4/30/2012 739 745.2 0.103 -1.325
340 5/2/2012 749 743.35 0.186 -1.139
341 5/3/2012 741 738.85 0.580 -0.560
342 5/4/2012 731.8 726.45 -0.286 -0.846
343 5/7/2012 717 715.3 0.150 -0.696
344 5/8/2012 719.6 708.65 0.100 -0.596
345 5/9/2012 703 695.1 -0.292 -0.888
346 5/10/2012 697.7 694.65 1.142 0.254
347 5/11/2012 693 697.3 0.082 0.336
348 5/14/2012 701.4 681.15 -0.632 -0.296
349 5/16/2012 675 676.2 1.292 0.995
350 5/17/2012 681.8 685.1 0.858 1.853
351 5/18/2012 678 688.65 0.159 2.012
352 5/21/2012 689 695.5 0.965 2.977
353 5/22/2012 703.8 691.2 0.394 3.371
354 5/23/2012 687.5 687.2 -0.012 3.359
350
CHAPTER - 7
CONCLUSION
The study was carried out with a view to understand the rise of the
M & A phenomena as also to reveal whether the wealth maximization
proposition a guiding philosophy for financial function, leads to shareholders‘
wealth maximization or not. Hereunder, an attempt is made to present the
summary of the findings though detailed analysis is given in the previous
chapters and offers some suggestions. This chapter is divided into three parts.
Part-1, narrates the summary of the finding while part-2 presents the
recommendations and the last part presents the future areas for research.
7.1. Summary of Findings
Indian business enterprises were subjected to rigorous regulatory
regime before 1990s. This has led to asymmetrical growth of Indian corporate
enterprises during that period. The transformations initiated by the
Government since 1991, has influenced the governance of Indian business
enterprises. Indian corporate enterprises are refocusing on the lines of global
competitiveness, market share, core competency, and consolidation. This
process of refocusing has further been hastened by the arrival of foreign
competitors. In this backdrop, both the foreign and Indian companies are
engaging in mergers activities to scale up their operations.
7.1.1. Mergers and Acquisitions in India
In the earlier years, trend of cross-border M & A in terms of purchases by
developed countries were marginally higher than their sales, indicating a
351
small part of capital flowing into developing countries. On the contrary,
cross-border M & A in terms of sales were slightly higher than the
purchases in the developing countries whereas cross-border M & A in
terms of sales were slightly lesser than the purchase in the developing
countries. The share of developing countries in the total cross border M &
A was lower, it has seen increase in their net purchases after 2009.
Out of overall cross-border purchases, the share of two continents i.e.
Europe (USD 129371million (50.35 per cent)) and North America (USD
98436million (38.31 per cent)) constituted 88.66 percent of the values in
2003 and their dominance has been continuing until 2011 as net purchases
of two continents represented 90.02 per cent. However, the share was
reduced substantially to 70.71 per cent in 2010. The average share of two
continents was 87.78 per cent.
Out of the overall cross-border purchases by countries from developing
economies, the share of two continents i.e. Latin America & the Caribbean
and the Asia constituted 92.62 per cent of the values in 2002 and their
dominance has been continuing till 2011 as net purchases of two
continents represented 86.94 per cent.
The value of cross-border M & A of Indian companies reported a
fluctuating trend from year 2002 until May 2011. In 2002, net sales and
net purchase were $1698 million and $270 million respectively. However,
in 2003, cross-border net purchases increased to $1362 million while net
sales declined to $949 million. In 2007 total value of overseas net
purchases were $29083 million while net sales were $4405 million,
highest during the period under study. The cross border net purchases yet
again picked up in 2010 as total value of overseas M & A was $26421
352
million but probably same trend was disrupted in the year 2011 with total
value of M & A was $74 million. Whereas cross border net sales noticed
decrease in 2010 and 2011.
Interesting observation is that in maximum years, total values of cross-
border purchases were higher than total value of sales except for the year
2002, 2004, 2009, and 2011. The difference between the net purchases and
the net sales for the year 2005 was on account of only 4 deals but the value
was $1351 million.
Purchases of foreign companies by Indian companies were found to be
increasing and same trend was noticed in global cross-border M & A and
started reverse trend where purchases from developing countries was
higher than their sales. This evidently points to the fact that Indian
companies now have a preference to expand their market outside India
adjacent to the domestic market.
It is worth noting from the study that during the period 2002-03 to 2010-
11, about 802 companies in India participated in M & A and of them
majority were in Service sector. However, manufacturing sector is also in
the direction of M & A, whereas finance and primary sectors had
significantly low impact. The study revealed companies acquired by Indian
and foreign companies, registered by SEBI have undergone significant
structural changes in terms of financial management, change in control,
and consolidation of holding in the target company. It also showed that
individual business people did the majority of acquisitions but their equity
share holding was critical in the change of control of the target company.
Indian companies had 634 M&A and other continents companies
purchased 168 Indian companies during the studied period.
Around 79% companies acquired in India belongs to Indian company (it
included companies registered in India) while 9%, 6%, 3% and 2.6%
353
companies belong to Europe, Africa, other Asian countries and North
America respectively. The percentages of Asia-India continent is very high
i.e. 79% as most of Indian campiness acquired by Indian companies or
Indian Professional Individuals.
In India, out of 802 acquisition deals, 528 (65.8%) numbers of acquisition
deals completed with object of change in control while only 167 (20.8%)
deals completed with objective of consolidation of holding and only 107
(13.3%) acquisition deals were successfully achieved objective of
substantial acquisition.
The Indian target companies acquired by Indian industrialists also
witnessed similar trend as maximum acquisitions completed with intention
of change in control i.e. 426 deals (67.2%). Whereas companies acquired
with purpose of consolidation of holdings were 129 deals (20.3%) while
Indian companies‘ under the objective of substantial acquisition concluded
79 deals (12.7%) in domestic market. The investment made by all the
continent companies where maximum acquisitions successfully completed
were with intent of change in control of target companies.
No trend is visible during the period in India since M&A were showing up
and down year on year. In the year 2008-09, 113 (16.1%) Indian
companies acquired as compared to 58 (8.3%) in the year 2004-05.
However, in the year 2009-10 M&A activities decreased to 10.8% (76
deals) but in the year 2010-11 again upward trend was noticed in Indian
financial market i.e. 12.6% (101 deals). Around 50% difference observed
between highest number of acquisitions and lowest number of acquisitions
because of downfall in M&A activities by Indian companies in Indian
market.
Indian companies completed 64 deals (10.1%) in the year 2002-03 while
decline was seen in the year 2003-04 by 8 deals and it further decreased by
354
13 deals in the year 2004-05. The increasing trend observed from 2006-07
onwards till 2008-09 as 86 deals (13.6%) and 90 deals (13.6%) were
concluded respectively but decline was noticed in the year 2009-10 while
increasing trend observed in 2010-11.
The market value of shares acquired of target companies ranged from 1 to
7315. Of this 64.2% was accounted for by companies having market
value of less than 50.
The market value of shares acquired by Indian companies in the range of
1-199, approximately 92% (580 deals).
7.1.2. Literature Review
Review of literature provides inconclusive evidence with regards to
motives of takeovers. The agency theory, hubris, and synergy
independently failed to provide clue to M & A activity.
Presence of one motive is accompanied by another. Along with synergy,
hubris or agency has been at work causing divestiture or spin-off at a later
date.
Sirower (1997) conducted study to examine whether M & A is good for
shareholders or presumably for the economy. He concluded that synergies
were only realized through post-merger integration of both processes and
people, where a premium has been paid for the acquisition. The slower the
integration the slower the recognition of synergies and was more
expensive. Adding synergy means creating value that not only didn‘t yet
exist but was not yet expected.
Joseph (2001) tried to link strategic intent to the implications of integration
that result. He stated that all M & A occur for either to deal with over-
355
capacity through consolidation in mature industries; to roll-up competitors
in geographically fragmented industries; to extend into new products or
markets; as a substitute for R&D; or to exploit eroding industry boundaries
by inventing an industry.
7.1.3. Legal aspects of Merger and Acquisition
Law concerning the takeover, amalgamation, and merger has evolved over
a period of time in-line with changes in the economic environment both
locally as well as globally. Competition Law is one such example, which
has replaced the MRTP Act, 1969.
The Committee was established by SEBI to recommend enhancements in
the Takeover Code. The new amendments announced by SEBI have
fundamentally been made on the basis of the report submitted by the
Takeover Regulations Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of
Mr. C. Achuthan.
The report formulated by committee taking into account the rapidly
increasing level of M&A activity, the rising refinement of the takeovers
Indian market, SEBI‘s decade-long regulatory proficiency in capital
markets, and several legal verdicts concerning to the Takeover Code.
On the basis of research and existing best procedures in other states
jurisdictions, the Committee has recommended several amendments to the
exiting Takeover (SAST) Regulation of 1997. The result of these
356
modifications has been to achieve the amended code considerably in line
with worldwide takeover regulations.
The objectives of SAST are to protect interest of the investors in security
market for a listed company providing amongst others, a chance for the
public shareholders to exit where there is a significant acquisition of equity
shares or voting rights or control over a listed company, consolidation of
holdings by dominant shareholders and associated disclosures and
punishments for non-compliance.
There are three major changes in the takeover code, which are different
from the earlier takeover code, i.e., the Initial Threshold limit provided for
open offer an obligation is increased from 15% to 25% of the voting rights
of the target company. The increase in open offer increased from 20% to
26% and Abolition of Non-compete fees
Practical experience has shown that the majority of M & A cases notified
to the commission are cleared quite quickly. The Act, itself lays down
stringent time lines - the Commission must take a view within 90 working
days from the day it has obtained complete information failing which the
combination is deemed to have been approved.
Further global experience suggests that hardly four per cent of the all
notified combinations are taken up for a detailed scrutiny by the
competition authorities, of which 50% are approved, and a further 25% are
approved with modifications. So far no case, has been rejected by CCI.
357
7.1.4. Wealth Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions: An Event Study
On an average, M & A events involving the domestic as well as foreign
acquirers were not value enhancing as average CAR (-180, +180) of total
sample size for Indian as well as foreign companies were equals to 0%.
Interestingly, at total sample size as well as at Indian and foreign
companies level average CAR (-11, +11) is found to be negative i.e.
-0.17%, -0.21% and -0.08% respectively. This finding is consistent with
negative acquirer returns reported by Eger (1983).
A. Industry Group Analysis
On an average for the 23 day CAR (-11, +11) the shareholders of
acquirers company lost by 2.22% for Primary sector, 1.08% for
Manufacturing sector, while shareholders of acquirers gained by 1.48%
in Services sector but companies from Financial sector registered loss
of 1.06%.
In pre event window, shareholders of acquiring companies lost by
13.67% for Primary sector, 5.96% for Manufacturing sector while
shareholders of Service sector had gained by 7.64% but shareholders
of Financial sector had lost by 32.67%.
The post event window i.e. CAR (0, +180) explained reverse trend
compared to pre event window as shareholders from Primary sector
gained by 11.69%, 5.55% for Manufacturing sector but shareholders
358
from Service sector lost by 7.82% but shareholders of Financial sector
had gained by 32.86% and it was significant at 95% level compared to
Service sector.
The CAR (-180, +180) showed no gain or no loss as average CAR was
close to 0% for Indian companies as well as for foreign companies and
industries like Primary, Manufacturing and Service sector also
highlighted average CAR tending to 0%. This finding is similar to
hubris hypothesis (Roll, 1986).
B. CAR of Acquiring Group
The median values of event window and post event window were
negative i.e. CAR (-11, +11) for -0.4% and CAR (0, +180) for -1.33%
while pre event window showed positive return (1.03%) although these
values are having less than the mean values for the same event window
period.
The event window showed lost value by 4.5% for Primary sector,
1.18% for Manufacturing sector, while marginal gained by 0.12%
notice in Services sector but companies From Financial sector
registered loss of 0.33%.
During the pre-event window i.e. CAR (-180, 0) the shareholders of
acquiring companies lost by 14.2% for Primary sector, 0.45% for
Manufacturing sector while shareholders of Service sector had gained
by 3.19% but shareholders of Financial sector had lost by 28.49%.
359
The post event window i.e. CAR (0, +180) explained reverse trend
compared to CAR (-180, 0) as Primary sector gained by 11.97%,
0.67% for Manufacturing sector but Service sector lost by 3.57%
whereas Financial sector had gained by 29.65%.
C. CAR of Target Companies
The median values of event window and pre event window were
positive i.e. CAR (-11, +11) for 0.27% and CAR (-180, 0) for 6.88%
while post event window showed negative return (-7.13%) although
these values are having less than the average values for the same event
window period.
The event window (-11, +11) showed loss of value by 3.44% for
primary sector, 0.79% for manufacturing sector, while Service sector
gained by 2.10% and companies from Financial sector registered gain
of 1.78%.
The pre event window i.e. CAR (-180, 0) the shareholders of target
companies lost by 0.67% for Primary sector while shareholders of
Manufacturing, Service and Finance sectors had shown gain of 9.32%,
7.00% and 15.35% respectively.
The post event window noticed reverse trend compare to pre event
window as Primary sector gained by 0.68% whereas Manufacturing,
Service and Finance sectors had shown loss of 9.28%, 6.70% and
15.07% respectively.
360
D. CAR of Indian and Foreign Companies:
The average values of event window and pre event window were
negative (-0.21% and -2.2) while post event window showed positive
return (1.82%) for Indian companies and same trend was also noticed
for foreign companies i.e. event window (-0.08), pre event window (-
4.86%) and post event window (4.6%).
Companies from India showed loss of value by 3.16% for Primary
sector, 0.91% for Manufacturing sector, while gained by 1.31% in
Services sector but companies from Financial sector registered loss of
0.33% in event window. Whereas foreign companies gained for
Primary and Service sectors by 0.59% and 1.79% but Manufacturing
and Finance sectors shown loss by 1.48% and 1.81% respectively.
In pre event window the shareholders of Indian acquiring companies
lost by 19.93% for Primary sector, 4.05% for Manufacturing sector
and 25.76% for Finance sector while shareholders of Service sector
had gained by 7.59%. However, foreign companies lost by 10.52% in
Manufacturing sector and 53.38% in Finance sector whereas
shareholders shown gain for Primary, and Service sectors by 5.11%
and 7.73% respectively.
In post event window explained reverse trend compared to pre event
window for foreign and Indian companies as Primary and Service
sectors registered lost by 6.88% and 7.64% respectively but
Manufacturing and Finance sectors noticed profit by 9.97% and
53.84% respectively for foreign companies. Whereas Indian companies
noticed gain for Primary, Manufacturing and Finance sectors by
361
17.88%, 3.7% and 25.86% respectively while Service sector had lost
by 7.59%.
E. Measurement of Combined Value
The median values of event window and pre event window were
positive return i.e. (0.09% and 6.45%) while post event window
showed negative return i.e. -6.11.
The event window showed loss of value by 7.94% for Primary sector,
0.6% for Manufacturing sector, and 0.6% for Finance sector while
gained by 2.07% notice in Services sector.
In pre event window, highlighted loss of value for Primary and Finance
sectors by 16.1% and 19.88% while Manufacturing and Service sector
noticed gain by 5.27% and 13.54% respectively.
In post-event window explained opposite trend compared to pre event
window as Primary and Finance sector noticed gain of value i.e.
(14.26% and 20.88%) while Manufacturing and Service sectors noticed
loss of value by 4.72% and 11.67% respectively.
The examination of behavior of CAR during pre and post event period
suggests that market behaviour appears to be consistent with semi-strong form
of market efficiency and that market does not reward the M & A. However,
this remains inconclusive, as in case of financial services the shareholders
have gained. This may be due to infirmities in the market. Hence, it would be
safe to infer that market penalizes the takeover bid, as it does not put value on
such activity.
362
7.1.5. Case studies
A. An aborted takeover of L&T by RIL
RIL and L&T case appear to refute hubris hypothesis but it may be so
due to weak regulatory regime and inefficient market institutions,
which have been utilized effectively by the RIL management.
B. Case of Hutch takeover by Vodafone
It was surprising to note that the value of wealth from the date of
events decreased in maximum event windows for Vodafone. This may
be due to the low profile of HTI in telecom business when compared to
Vodafone.
C. Case study of RIL and Bharti AXA Life Insurance
After reviewing, the third case of RIL and Bharti AXA Life Insurance
Company showed positive CAR in all the event windows. The role of
CCI in this process is highly significant.
7.2. Recommendations:
The outcomes of the reform initiated in different sectors have been to
introduce new laws and setting-up of regularity institutions. Besides,
liberalizing the extant regulations which in own way have created more ruffles
then ironing-out the inefficiency in the market.
To ensure efficient and transparent working of the market for corporate
control following suggestion are offered.
M and A remains a matter of multiple regulatory agencies such as, CCI,
SEBI, Court and Government of India which are require to be approach for
363
multiple clearance and reporting. Therefore, there is a need to have one
window clearance for M & A, which are not hostile.
Tax law needs to be modified such that retrospective tax penalty is not
imposed in M & A particularly when share-to-share deal is there.
7.3. Future Areas of Research
Since not many research efforts are seen in the area of M & A, it offers vital
scope for further research. Following are the areas in Indian setting in future
researchers.
Corporate governance and M & A
Cultural integration in M & A
Corporate disclosure and M & A
Analysis of value creation in domestic and cross-border M & A and their
disparities, if any
Relationship between outward FDI and cross-border M & A.
Analysis of companies who have multiple cross-border M & A and their
effects on profit and turnovers at company level and group level.
364
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adjei, F. Cyree, B. and Walker, M. (2007), "The Determinants and Survival of
Reverse Mergers versus IPOs," Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol.
32(2), pp. 176-194.
1621.
Alexandridis, G. Petmezas, D. and Travlos, N. (2010), ―Gains from mergers
and acquisitions around the world: new evidence‖, Financial Management
Journal, Vol. 39 (4), pp.1671-1695.
Al-Sharkas, A. Hassan, K. and Lawrence, S. (2008), ―The Impact of Mergers
Evidence‖, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 35 (1-2), pp.50-
70.
Andrade, E. Mitchell, M. and Stafford E. (2001), ―New Evidence and
Perspectives on Mergers‖, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15 (2), pp.
103-120.
Andrade, G. and Stafford, E. (2004), ―Investigating the Economic Role of
Mergers‖, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 10 (1), pp.1-36.
Andrews, K., (1971), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Homewood,
Illinois: Dow Jones Irwin.
Anslinger, Patricia, L. and Thomas E. (1996), ―Growth Through Acquisitions:
A Fresh Look‖, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 (1), pp. 126-135.
365
Ansoff, H. and Weston, J. (1962), ―Merger Objectives and Organisational
Structure‖, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, Vol.2 (3),
pp.49-55.
Arellano-Ostoa, A. and Brusco, S. (2002), ―Understanding Reverse Mergers:
A First Approach‖, Working Paper, de Madrid, Spain: Universidad Carlos III.
Arun Kumar, G. Debashis, A. and Jaideep, M. (2008), ―Stock price reaction to
merger announcements: an empirical note on Indian markets‖, Investment
Management and Financial Innovations, Vol. 5 (1), pp. 95-103.
Asquith, P. (1983), ―Merger bids, uncertainty, and stockholder returns‖,
Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 11(1-4), pp. 51–83.
1209-1228.
Babbile, E. (1998), ―The Practice of Social Research‖, 8th edition, Belmont,
California: Wordsworth Publishing Company.
Bae, Kee-Hong, Kang, Jun-Koo, and Kim, Jin-Mo., (2002), ―Tunneling or
Value Added? Evidence from Mergers by Korean Business Groups‖, Journal
of Finance, Vol. 57 (6), pp. 2695-2740.
Ball, R. & Brown, P. (1968), ―An empirical evaluation of accounting income
numbers‖, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.6 (2), pp.159–178.
366
Banning, C. (1999), ―Ownership Concentration and Bank Acquisition
Strategy: An Empirical Examination‖, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol. 7(2), pp. 135-152.
Barney, J. (1988), ―Returns to bidding firms in mergers and acquisitions:
reconsidering the relatedness hypothesis‖, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 9 (S1), pp. 71–78.
Beena, P. (2000), An Analysis of Mergers in the Private Corporate Sector in
India, New Delhi: Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal
Nehru University.
_______ (2004), ―Towards Understanding the Merger-wave in the Indian
on 15th May 2011.
Beena, S. (2010), ―Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions in India: Extent,
Nature, and Structure‖, Working Paper, Download from http://www.cds.edu/
accessed on 15th May 2011.
Ben-Amar, W. and Andre, P. (2006), ―Separation of ownership from control
and acquiring firm performance: the case of family ownership in Canada‖,
Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 33 (3-4), pp. 517–543.
Berkovitch, E. and Khanna, N. (1990), ―How target shareholders benefit from
value reducing defensive strategies in takeovers‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 45
(1), pp. 137 – 156.
Berkovitch, E. and Narayanan, P. (1993), ―Motives for Takeovers: An
Empirical Investigation‖, Journal of Finance and Quantitative Analysis, Vol.
28 (3), pp. 347-362.
367
Bhalla, V. (2005), Financial Management and Policy-Text and Cases, 5th
revised Ed., New Delhi: Anmol Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Science, Vol.54 (6), pp. 1037-1051.
Boone, A. Mulherin, J. (2007), ―How Are Firms Sold?‖, Journal of Finance,
Vol. 62 (2), pp. 847-875.
Bradley, M. Desai, A. and Kim E. (1983), ―The rationale behind inter-firm
tender offers‖, Journal Financial Economics, Vol. 11 (1-4), pp. 183–206.
acquisitions and their division between the stockholders of target and
acquiring firms‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 21 (1), pp. 3–40.
Brigham, E. and Ehrhardt, M. (2002), Financial Management—Theory and

th
Practice, 10 Ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
Bris, A. and Cabolis, C. (2008) ―The value of investor protection: Firm
evidence from cross-border mergers‖, The Review of Financial Studies, Vol.
21 (2), pp. 605-49.
Bromiley, P. Govekar, M. and Marcus, A. (1988), ―On Using Event-Study
Methodology in Strategic Management Research‖, Technovation, 8(1-3), pp.
25-42.
Brown, J. and Warner B. (1980), ―Measuring Security Price Performance‖,
Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 8 (3), pp.205-258.
Brown, J. and Warner B. (1985), ―Using Daily Stock Returns: The Case of
Event Studies‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.14 (1), pp.3 – 31.
368
Bruner, R. (2001), ―Does M&A Pay? A survey of evidence for the decision
maker‖, Working Paper, Darden Graduate School of Business, University of
Virginia.
Buono, A.F. (2003), "Seam-less Post-merger Integration Strategies: A Cause
for Concern", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 16 (1),
pp.90-98.
Campa, J. and Hernando, I. (2004), ―Shareholder value creation in European
M&A‖, European Financial Management, Vol. 10 (1), pp. 47–81.
Campbell, Y. Lo, W. and MacKinlay, C. (1997), The Econometrics of
Financial Markets, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Cantwell, J. (1992), ―The Theory of Technological Competence and Its
Application to International Production‖, in D. G. McFeteridge (Ed.), Foreign
Investment, Technology and Economic Growth, Calgary: University of
Calgary Press.
Caves, E. (1971), ―International Corporations: The industrial economics of
foreign investment‖, Economica, Vol. 38 (149), pp. l-27.
Caves, R. (1982), Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis,
Cambridge, MAJ Cambridge University Press.
Chacar, A. and Vissa, B. (2005), ―Are Emerging economies less efficient?
Performance persistence and the impact of business group affiliation‖,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol.26 (10), pp. 933-946.
Chakrabarti, R. (2008), ―Do Indian acquisitions add value?‖, Money and
Finance, Vol.3 (3), pp. 1-10.
and Bidder Returns‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 53 (2), pp. 773-784.
369
Chatterjee, S. (1986), ―Types of synergy and economic value: the impact of
acquisitions on merging and rival firms‖, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.
7(2), pp.119–139.
Chatterjee, S. (1992), ―Source of value in takeovers: synergy or
restructuring—implications for target and bidder firms‖, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 13(4), pp.267–286.
Chevalier, J. (1995), "Capital Structure and Product-market Competition:
Empirical evidence from the supermarket industry," American Economic
Review, Vol. 85(3), 415-435.
Chidambaram, P. (2003), ―Law and Commerce: And the Twain shall Meet‖,
The Sunday Express, 26th October 2003, Ahmedabad, Accessed on 28th May,
2011.
Clark, K. and Ofek, E. (1994), ―Mergers as a means of restructuring distressed
firms: An empirical investigation‖, Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, Vol. 29 (4), 541-565.
Comanor, S. (1967), "Vertical Mergers, Market Power and the Antitrust
Laws‖, American Economic Review, Vol.57, pp.254-265.
Conn, C. Cosh, A. Guest, P. and Hughes, A. (2005), ―The impact on UK
acquirers of domestic, cross border, public and private acquisitions‖, Journal
of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 32 (5-6), pp. 815–870.
Danbolt, J. (2004), ―Target company cross-border effects in acquisitions into
the UK‖, European Financial Management, Vol. 10 (1), pp. 83-108.
Davidson, W. Dutia, D. and Cheng L. (1989), ―A Re-Examination of the
Market Reaction to Failed Mergers‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 44 (5), pp.
1077–1083.
370
Dodd, P. and Ruback, R. (1977), ―Tender Offers and Stockholder Returns: An
Dyckman, T. Philbrick, D. Stephan, J. and Ricks, W. (1984), ―A comparison
of event study methodologies using daily stock returns: A simulation
approach‖, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 22, pp. 1-33.
Eckbo, B. and Thorburn, K. (2000), ―Gains To Bidder Firms Revisited:
Domestic And Foreign Acquisitions In Canada‖, Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 35 (1), pp.1-25.
Eckbo, B. Espen, M. and Jeffrey W. (1990), ―Consistent estimation of cross-
sectional models in event studies‖, Review of Financial Studies, Vol.3 (3), pp.
343–365.
Eckbo, E. (1983), ―Horizontal Mergers, Collision, and Stockholder Wealth‖,
Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 11 (1-4), pp. 241-273.
________ (1985), ―Mergers and the Market Concentration Doctrine: Evidence
From The Capital Market‖, Journal of Business, Vol. 58 (3), pp. 325-349.
________ (1992), ―Mergers and the Value of Antitrust Deterrence‖, Journal of
Finance, Vol. 47 (3), pp. 1005-1029.
Eckbo, E. and Wier, P. (1985), ―Anti-merger Policy Under The Hart-Scott-
Rodino Act: A Reexamination of the Market Power Hypothesis‖, Journal of
Law and Economics, Vol. 28 (1), pp. 119-149.
Eger, C. (1983), ―An empirical test of the redistribution effect in pure
exchange mergers‖, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol.18
(4), pp. 547-572.
371
Eun, Cheol, S. Kolodny, R. and Scheraga C. (1996), ―Cross-Border
Acquisitions and Shareholder Wealth: Tests of the Synergy and Internalization
Hypotheses‖, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 20(9), pp. 1559-1582.
Fama, E. (1970), ―Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and
Empirical Work‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 25 (2), pp. 383-417.
________ (1990), ―Contract costs and financing decisions‖, Journal of
Business, Vol. 63 (1), pp. 71-91.
Fama, E. and French, K. (1993), ―Common risk factors on the returns on
stocks and bonds‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 33 (1), pp. 3–56.
Fama, F. Fisher, L. Jensen M. and Roll, R. (1969), ―The adjustment of stock
prices to new information‖, International Economic Review, Vol. 10 (1), pp.
1-21.
Fluck, Z. and Lynch, W. (1999), ―Why do firms merge and then divest? A
theory of financial synergy‖, Journal of Business, Vol.72 (3), pp. 319-346.
(1), pp. 81-96.
takeovers: the U.K. experience 1955-1985‖, Journal of Financial Economics,
Vol. 23 (2), pp.225-249.
Froot, A. and Stein, J. (1991), ―Exchange rates and foreign direct investment:
An imperfect capital market approach‖, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.
106 (4), pp. 1191-1217.
372
Fuller, K. Netter, J. and Stegemoller, M. (2002), ―What Do Returns to
Ghatak, M. and Kali, R. (2001), ―Financially interlined business groups‖,
Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol.10 (2), pp. 591-619.
Corporate Acquisitions?‖, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 7 (2), pp.151-
178.
Ghosh, A. and Ruland, W. (1998), ―Managerial Ownership, the Method of
Payment for Acquisitions, and Executive Job Retention‖, Journal of Finance,
Vol. 53 (2), pp. 785-798.
Goergen, M. and Renneboog, L. (2004), ―Shareholder Wealth Effects of
European Domestic and Cross Border Takeover Bids‖, European Financial
Management, Vol. 10 (1), pp. 9-45.
GOI (1969),―Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act‖, Delhi:
Government of India Press.
Gregory, A. (1997), ―An examination of the long run performance of UK
acquiring firms‖, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 24 (7-8),
pp. 971–1007.
Gregory, A. and McCorriston, S. (2005), ―Foreign acquisitions by UK limited
companies: short- and long-run performance‖, Journal of Empirical Finance,
Vol. 12 (1), pp. 99–125.
Grinblatt, M. and Titman, S. (2002), Financial Markets and Corporate

nd
Strategy, 2 ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
373
Groenewold, N. and Fraser, P. (2000), ―Forecasting beta: how well does the
five year rule of thumb do?‖, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting,
Vol. 27 (7-8), pp. 953–982.
Gubbi, R. Aulakh, S. Ray, S. Sarkar, B. and Chittoor, R. (2010), ―Do
International Acquisitions by Emerging-Economy Firms Create Shareholder
Value & quest: the Case of Indian Firms‖, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 397-418.
Gupta, A. and Misra, L. (2004), ―Deal size, premium paid and the gains in
financial mergers: the impact of managerial motivation‖, The Financial
Review, Vol. 42 (3), pp. 373-400.
Hagerdoorn, J. and Duysters, G. (2002),―External sources of innovative
capabilities: The preference for strategic alliances or mergers and
acquisitions‖, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 (2),pp. 167-185.
Halpern, P. (1973), ―Empirical Estimates of the Amount and Distribution of
Gains to Companies in Mergers,‖ Journal of Business, Vol.46 (4), pp. 554–
575.
Hansen, Robert G. and John, L. (1996), ―Externalities and corporate objectives
in a world with diversified shareholders/consumers‖, Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 31 (1), pp. 43–68.
Harford, J. (2005), ―What Drives Merger Waves‖, Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 77 (3), pp. 529-560.
Harris, R. and Ravenscraft, D. (1991), ―The role of acquisitions in foreign
direct investment: Evidence from the U.S. stock market, Journal of Finance,
Vol. 46 (3), pp. 825-844.
374
Haspeslagh, Philippe C. and David B. (1991), Managing Acquisitions:
Creating Value Through Corporate Renewal, New York: Free Press.
Healy, P. Palepu, K. and Ruback, R. (1992), ―Does Corporate performance
improve after mergers, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 31 (2), pp. 135-
175.
Hietala, P. Kaplan, S. and Robinson, D. (2003), ―What Is The Price Of
Hubris? Using Takeover Battles To Infer Overpayment And Synergies‖
Financial Management, Vol. 32 (3), pp. 5-31.
Higham, Charles S.S (1934), History of the British Empire. London:
Longmans, Green and Company.
Higson, C. and Elliot, J. (1998), ―Post-takeover returns: the UK evidence‖,
Journal of Empirical Finance, Vol. 5 (1), pp. 27–46.
Holl, P. and Kyriazis, D. (1997),―Wealth creation and bid resistance in UK
takeover bids‖, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 (6), pp. 483–498.
Huang, Y. and Walkling, R. (1987), ―Target Abnormal Returns Associated
with Acquisition Announcements: Payment, Acquisition Form, and
Managerial Resistance‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 19 (2), pp.
329-349.
Hughes, A (1993), ―Mergers and Economic Performance in the UK: A Survey
of the Empirical Evidence 1950-90‖, in M. Bishop and J. Kay, Eds., European
Mergers and Merger Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymer, H. (1976), The international operations of national firms: A study of
direct foreign Investment, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
375
Offers: Evidence from Three Decades‖, Financial Management, Vol. 18 (3),
pp. 12-19.
Jarrell, G. Brickley, J. and Netter, J. (1988), ―The Market for Corporate
Control: The Evidence since 1980‖, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 2
(1), pp. 49–68.
_________ (1988), ―Takeovers: Their causes and consequences‖, Journal of
Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976), ‗Theory of the Firm: Managerial
Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure‘, Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 3(4), pp. 305-360.
Jing, S. (2012), ―Analysis of Merger and Acquisition Strategy of
Multinationals in China and Chinese Enterprises Countermeasures‖, Cross-
Cultural Communication, Vol.8 (2), pp. 56-60.
Jones, G. (2005), Multinationals and Global Capitalism: From the Nineteenth
Century to the Twenty- First Century, New York: Oxford University Press.
Joseph, B. (2001), ―Not all M&As are Alike –And that Matters‖, Harvard
Business Review, pp. 93-101.
Jun-Koo. (1993), ―The international market for corporate control: Mergers and
acquisitions of U.S. firms by Japanese firms‖, Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 34(3), pp. 345-371.
376
Kale, Prashanth, and Harbir Singh. (2005), ―Acquisitions and Alliances:
Indian Companies and Value Creation‖, The Tata Management Training
Centre Journal of Management, January: pp.13–18.
Kaplan, S. and Weisbach, M. (1992), ―The Success of Acquisitions: Evidence
From Divestitures‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 47 (1), pp. 107-138.
Kar, N. (2004), ―Mergers and Acquisitions in India: Background, Implications
and Emerging Issues‖, Chartered Secretary, December, pp.3-15.
Katsuhiko, I. and Noriyuki, D. (1983): ―The Performances of Merging Firms
in Japanese Manufacturing Industry: 1964-75‖, The Journal of Industrial
Economics, Vol. 31 (3), pp. 257-266.
Keilis-Borok V.I. et al. (2008), ―Pattern of Macroeconomic Indicators
Preceding the End of an American Economic Recession‖, Journal of Pattern
Recognition Research, Vol.3 (1), pp. 40-53.
Kennedy, V. and Limmack, R. (1996), ―Takeover activity, CEO turnover and
the market for corporate control‖, Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting, Vol. 23 (2), pp. 267–285.
Khanna, T. and Palepu, K. (2000), ―Is group affiliation profitable in emerging
markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups‖, Journal of
Finance, Vol.55 (2), pp. 867-891.
Kim, E. Han, and Singal. (2000), ―Stock Market Openings: Experience of
Emerging Economies‖, Journal of Business, Vol. 73 (1), pp.25-66.
Kindleberger, P. (1969), American business abroad: Six Lectures on Direct
Investment, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kini, O. Kracaw, W. and Mian, S. (2004), ―The nature of discipline by
corporate takeovers‖, Journal of Finance, Vol.59 (4), pp. 1511-1552.
377
Knapp, M. Gart, A. and Chaudhry, M. (2006), ―The impact of mean reversion
of bank profitability on post-merger Performance in the banking industry‖,
Kode, G. Ford, J. and Sutherland, M. (2003), ―A conceptual model for
evaluation of synergies in mergers and acquisitions: a critical review of the
literature‖, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 34 (1), pp.
27-38.
Kothari, L. (1967), ―Industrial Combinations, A Study of Managerial
Integration in Indian Industries‖, Allahabad: Chaitanya Publishing House.
Kumar, B. and Rajib, P. (2007), ―Characteristics of merging firms in India: an
empirical examination‖, Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision-Makers, Vol. 32
(1), pp. 27-44.
Kummer, D. and Hoffmeister, R. (1978), ―Valuation Consequences of Cash
La Porta, R. Lopez-de, S. and Shleifer, A. (1999),―Corporate Ownership
around the World‖, Journal of Finance, Vol.54 (2). pp. 471-517.
Lang, L. Stulz, R. and Walking, R. (1989), ―Managerial performance, Tobin‘s
q and gains from successful tender offers‖, Journal of Financial Economics,
Vol. 24 (1), pp. 137–154.
________ (1991), ―A test of the free cash flow hypothesis: the case of bidder
returns‖, Journal Financial Economics, Vol. 29 (2), pp. 315–335.
Langetieg, T. (1978), ―An Application of a Three Factor Index to Measure
Stockholders' Gains from Merger‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 6
(4),pp. 365–384.
378
Lesnik, R. Molen, V. and Gangopadhyay, S. (2003), ―Business groups,
financing constraints and investment: The case of India‖, Journal of
Development Studies, Vol.40 (2), pp. 93-119.
Lewellen, W. Loderer, C. and Rosenfeld, A. (1985), ―Merger decisions and
executive stock ownership in acquiring firms‖, Journal of Accounting and
Economics, Vol.7 (1-3), pp.209-231.
Limmack, J. (1991), ―Corporate mergers and wealth effects: 1977–86‖,
Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 21 (83), pp. 239–251.
(4), pp. 17–33.
Loughran, T. and Vijh M. (1997), ―Do Long-term Shareholders Benefit from
Corporate Acquisitions?‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 52 (5), pp. 1765-1790.
________ (1987), ―Merger strategies and stockholder value‖, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 8 (1), pp. 39–53.
Maksimovic, V. and Phillips, G. (2001), ― The Market for Corporate Assets;
Who engages in Mergers and Asset Sales and Are There Efficiency Gain?‖,
Journal of Finance, Vol.56(6), pp.2019-2065.
function of merging firms‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 11 (1-4),
pp. 155–181.
379
_______ (2008a), ―Post-merger performance of acquiring firms from different
industries in India‖, Journal of Finance and Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 192 –
204.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1317757 accessed on
10th July 2011.
________ (2008b), ―Type of merger and impact on operating performance: the
Indian experience‖, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. (43), pp. 66-74.
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1318239 accessed on 10th July
2011.
Maquieira, P. William, L. and Lance, N. (1988), ―Wealth Creation Versus
Wealth Redistributions in Pure Stock-For-Stock Mergers‖, Journal of
Financial Economics, Vol. 48 (1), pp. 3-33.
performance of European Acquisitions‖, International Mergers and
Acquisitions Activity since 1990: Recent Research and Quantitative Analysis,
Massachusetts: Elsevier.
Marks, M. and Mirvis, P. (1986), ``The Merger Syndrome'', Psychology
Today, Vol. 20 (10), pp. 36-42.
Marks, M. and Mirvis, P. (1997), ―Revisiting the merger syndrome: Dealing
with Stress, Mergers and Acquisitions: The Dealer makers Journal, Vol. 31
(6), pp. 21-27.
380
Marks, M. and Mirvis, P. (1997), ―Revisiting the merger syndrome: crisis
management part 2'', Mergers and Acquisitions: The Dealer makers Journal,
Vol. 32 (1), pp. 34-40.
Marris, R. (1964), The Economic Theory of Managerial Capitalism, London:
Macmillan.
Masulis, W. Wang, C. and Xie, F. (2007), ―Corporate Governance and
Acquirer Returns‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 62 (4), pp. 1851–1889.
Matsusaka, G. (1993), ―Takeover motives during the conglomerate merger
wave‖, Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 24 (3), pp. 357-379.
Matthew, R. and David, T. (2008), ―The Market for Mergers and the
Boundaries of the Firm‖, Journal of Finance, Vol.63 (3), pp. 1169-1211.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (1997), ―Event Studies in Management
Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues‖, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40(3), pp. 626-657.
Mihkel, T. (2002), ―Mergers to Monopoly‖, Journal of Economic &
Management Strategy, Vol.11 (3), pp. 513-546.
Mitchell, M. and Lehn, K. (1990), ―Do bad bidders become good targets‖,
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98 (2), pp. 372–398.
41 (2), pp.193-229
Moeller, B. Schlingemann, F. and Stulz, M. (2004), "Firm size and the gains
from acquisitions", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.73(2), pp. 201-228.
381
_______ (2005), ―Wealth Destruction on a Massive Scale? A Study of
Acquiring- Firm Returns in the Recent Merger Wave", Journal of Finance,
Vol. 60(2), pp. 757-782.
Morck, R. Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (1990), ―The Stock Market and
Investment: Is the Market a Sideshow?‖ Brookings Papers on Economic
Activity, Vol.2, pp. 157–215.
Mueller, D. C (1977) " The Effects of Conglomerate Mergers: A survey of the
Empirical Evidence", Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 1 (3), pp. 315-
347.
Mueller, D. C (1980), The Determinants and Effects of Mergers: An
International Comparison, Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain.
Mulherin, J. and Boone, A. (2000), ―Comparing acquisitions and divestitures‖,
Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 6 (2), pp. 117–139.
Mullin, G. Mullin, J. and Mullin, W. (1995), "The competitive effects of
mergers: stock market evidence from the U.S. Steel dissolution suit‖, Rand
Journal of Economics, Vol. 26(2), pp. 314- 330.
Narulla, R. (2003), ―Globalisation and Technology: Interdependence,
Innovation Systems and industrial Policy‖, New Delhi: Blackwell Publishing
Inc.
Panayides, M. and Gong X. (2002), ―The Stock Market Reaction to Merger
and Acquisition Announcements in Liner Shipping‖, International Journal of
Maritime Economics, Vol.4 (1), pp.55-80.
Paranjape, K. (1990), ―Case of an Aborted Takeover; L&T and Ambani
Story‖, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.25 (31), pp. 1691-97.
382
Behavior." Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 14 (2), pp. 246-276.
Pawaskar, V. (2001), ―Effect of mergers on corporate performance in India‖,
Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 19-32.
Rajesh Kumar, B. and Panneerselvam, S. (2009), ―Mergers, Acquisitions and
Wealth Creation: A Comparative Study in the Indian Context‖, IIMB
Management Review, Vol. 21(3), pp. 222-244.
Randall, M. Andrei, S. and Robert, W. (1990), ―Do Managerial Objectives
Drive Bad Acquisitions?‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 45(1), pp. 31-48.
Rao Mohana, P. (2004), ―Merger and Acquisitions of Companies‖, New Delhi:
Deep & Deep Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Reid, Samuel R. (1968), Mergers, Managers and the Economy, New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Rizvi, Y. (2008), ‗Picking the flowers‘; Acquisition, Strategy as a tool for
survival and growth a research paper submitted to 11thStrategic Management
Forum, IIT Kanpur.
Business, Vol. 59 (2), pp. 197-216.
Ronald, D. and Hemmo, K. (2001), ―Mergers and Acquisitions in a Global
Context Reaction of Price and Earnings Estimates‖, Journal of Investing, Vol.
10, (2) pp.29-35
Ruback, R. (1977), ―Tender Offers and Stockholder Returns: An Empirical
Analysis‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.5 (3), pp.351-374.
383
Scherer, F.M. (1988), ―The Market for Corporate Control: The Empirical
Evidence Since 1980‖, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 2 (1), pp. 69-
82.
11 (1-4), pp. 85-119.
Schmidt, S. and Rühli E. (2002), ―Prior strategy processes as a key to
understanding mega-mergers: The Novartis case‖, European Management
Journal, Vol. 20 (3), pp. 223–234.
Scholes, S. and Wolfson, M. (1989), ―The effects of changes in tax laws on
corporate reorganization activity‖, Journal of Business, Vol. 63 (1), pp.141-
164.
Servaes, H. (1991), ―Tobin‘s Q and the Gains from Takeovers‖, Journal of
Finance, Vol. 46 (1), pp. 409-419.
Seth, A. (1990), ―Sources of value creation in acquisitions: an empirical
investigation‖, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11(6),pp. 431–446.
Seth, A. Song, P.and Pettit, R. (2000), ―Synergy, Managerialism or Hubris?
An empirical examination of motives for foreign acquisitions of U.S. firms‖,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.31 (3), pp. 387-405.
Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (1989), ―Managerial entrenchment: the case of
manager-specific investments‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 41 (1),
pp. 193-229.
_________ (1990), ―The takeover wave of the 1980s‖, Science, Vol. 249
(4970), pp. 745-749.
384
_________ (2003), ―Stock Market Driven Acquisitions‖, Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol.70 (3), pp.295-311.
Singh, H. Montgomery, C. (1987), ―Corporate acquisition strategies and
economic performance‖, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8(4): pp. 377–
386.
Sirower, M. (1997), The Synergy Trap: How companies lose the acquisition
game, New York: The Free Press.
Smith, A. and Kim, J. (1994), ―The combined effects of free cash flow and
financial slack on bidder and target stock returns‖, Journal of Business, Vol.
67 (2), pp. 281– 310.
Song, M. and Walkling, R. (2000), ―Abnormal Returns to Rivals of
Acquisition Targets: A Test of the Acquisition Probability Hypothesis‖,
Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 55(2), pp.143-172.
Steven, K. and Michael W. (1992), ―The Success of Acquisitions: Evidence
from Divestitures‖, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper
No. 3484, New Working Papers Series, pp.1-28
Stillman, R. (1983), ―Examining Antitrust Policy Towards Horizontal
Mergers‖, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.11 (1-4), pp. 225-240.
Sudarsanam, S., and Mahate, A., (2003), ―Glamour acquirers, method of
payment and post-acquisition performance: the UK evidence‖, Journal of
Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 30 (1-2), pp. 299–341.
Suk, Y. and Sung, M. (1997), ―The Effects of the Method of Payment and the
type of offer on Target Returns in Mergers and Tender Offers‖, The Financial
Review, Vol. 32 (3), pp. 591-608.
385
Sundarsanam, P. (1997), Mergers and Acquisitions, New Delhi: Prentice Hall
of India.
Timothy, A. Hun Y. Kwangwoo, and Kazunori, S. (2003), ―Long-term
Diversification and Affiliation‖, American Finance Association, Washington
D.C, pp. 1-40.
Travlos, N. (1987), ―Corporate Takeover Bids, Methods of Payment, and
Bidding Firms' Stock Returns‖, Journal of Finance, Vol. 42 (4), pp. 943-963.
Travlos, N. and Papaioannou, J. (1991), ―Corporate Acquisitions: Method of
Payment Effects, Capital Structure Effects, and Bidding Firms‘ Stock
Returns‖, Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, Vol.30 (4), pp. 3-22.
Utton, M. (2008), ―International Competition Policy: Maintaining Open
Markets in the Global Economy”, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited.
Verma, C. (2002), Corporate Mergers Amalgamations and Takeovers:
Concept Practice and Procedure, 4th Ed., New Delhi: Bharat Publishing
House.
Vedpuriswar, V. (2003), ―Managing risks in Merger and Acquisitions‖, The
IUP Journal of Management Research, ICFAI Press.
Viswanathan, T. (2003), ―Law and Practice of Competition Act, 2002‖, New
Delhi: Bharat Law House.
Vojislav, M. and Phillips, G. (2001), ―The market for corporate assets: who
engages in mergers and asset sales and are there efficiency gains?‖, Journal of
Finance, Vol. 56 (6), pp. 2019-2065.
386
Walker, M. (2000).―Corporate takeovers, strategic objectives, and acquiring
firm shareholder wealth‖, Financial Management, Vol.29 (1), pp. 53–66.
Wansley, J. Lane, W. Yang, H. (1983), ―Abnormal Returns to Acquired Firms
by Type of Acquisition and Method of Payment‖, Financial Management,
Vol.12 (3), pp. 16-22.
Weston, J. and Mansinghka, S. (1971), ―Tests of the Efficiency Performance
of Conglomerate Firms‖, Journal of Finance, Vol.26 (4), pp. 919-936.
Weston, J. Juan, S. and Johnson, B. (2001), Takeovers, Restructuring, and
Corporate Governance, 3rd Ed., New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Wong, A. (2009), ―The Effects of Mergers and Acquisition Announcements
on the Security Prices of Bidding Firms and Target Firms in Asia‖,
International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol.1 (2), pp.274-283.
Wright, M. Filatotchev, I. Hoskisson, R. E. Peng, M. W. Campus, J.&
Campus, M. (2005), ―Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging
the conventional wisdom‖, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42(1), pp. 1-
33.
Zahra, A. and George, G. (2002), ―Absorptive capacity: A review, re-
conceptualization, and extension‖, Academy of Management Review, Vol.
27(2), pp. 185–203.
Zhu, C. and Malhotra, S. (2008), ―Announcement effect and price pressure: an
empirical study of cross-border acquisitions by Indian firms‖, International
Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Vol.13 (1), pp. 24-41.
387
WEBSITE:
Akbulut, M. and Matsusaka, J. (2003), ―Fifty years of diversification
announcements‖, Marshall School of Business Working Paper No. C08-2,
Social Science Research Network, www.ssrn.com accessed on 10th May 2010.
Anil M & Rajeshwari A. T (2001), ―Of far-off things and battles long ago‖,
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2001-12-06/news/27469271_1_
l-t-stock-l-t-board-dhirubhai-ambani accessed on 10th June 1212.
Bansal Ajit Kumar, (2011) ―Mergers & Acquisitions: Some Key Issues‖,
http://www.indianmba.com/Faculty_Column/FC1173/fc1173.html, Accessed
on 14 June 2011.
Bhaumik, S. and Selarka, E. (2008), ―Impact of M&A on firm performance in
India: Implications for concentration of ownership and insider entrenchment‖,
William Davidson Institute Working Paper Number, 907, February
2008.http://www.sumonbhaumik.net/wdi_wp907.pdf accessed on 15th May
2011.
Bradley, M. and Sundaram, K. (2004), ―Do Acquisitions Drive Performance
or Does Performance Drive Acquisitions?‖, Working Paper, available at
SSRN://ssrn.com/abstract=592761 accessed on 21st May 2010.
Briefing paper, Cuts Center for International Trade, Economics and
Environment, NO; 5/2000, http://www.cuts-international.org/5-2000.pdf
Accessed on 1/05/2010.
388
Business India, (2005), ―A Landmark Restructuring‖, http://www.adityabirla.
com/media/press_reports/landmark_restructuring.htm accessed on 5th March
2006.
CCI website (2005), ―Brief Note on the provisions of The Competition Act,
2002 and the jurisdiction, Powers and Duties of the Competition Commission
of India‖, http://www.competition-commission-india.nic.in/ Accessed on
October 20, 2011.
Chari, A. Ouimet, P. and Tesar, L. (2004), ―The Returns to Developed-Market
Acquirers in Emerging Markets‖, http://ssrn.com/abstract=891250 accessed on
15th May 2011.
Working Paper, Miami University. http://ssrn.com/abstract=499310 accessed
on 15th May 2011.
Daniel Gross, (2009), ―The Recession Is... Over?‖, Newsweek,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/13/the-recession-is-over.
html accessed on 18th September 2010.
Dasgupta, N. (2004), Corporate Governance Structure, Mergers and
Takeovers in India in the Post-Liberalization Regime—Proposals and
Policies, Calcutta: Bethune College. http://www.utiicm.com/cmc/PDFs/2000/
nandita_dasgupta.pdf accessed on 10th June 2010.
DNA (2006), ―INSIGHT: A merger with synergy‖, http://www.dnaindia.com/
money/report_insight-a-merger-with-synergy_1051355 accessed on 8th
February 2010.
389
East India Company, (1911), Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition,
Volume 8, p.835 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company, dated
26th July 2011.
Faccio, M. McConnell, J. and Stolin, D. (2007), ―When Do Bidders Gain? The
Difference in Returns to Acquirers of Listed and Unlisted Targets‖, Working
Paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract=467488 accessed on 15th May 2011.
Floros, I. and Shastri, K. (2009), ―A Comparison of Penny Stock Initial Public
Offerings and Reverse Mergers as Alternative Mechanisms to Going Public‖,
Social Science Research Network: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1460979 accessed
in 10th July 2011.
Gleason, K., Ravi, J., and Rosenthal, L., (2006), ―Alternatives for going
Public: Evidence from Reverse Takeovers, Self-Underwritten IPOs, and
Traditional IPOs‖, http://ssrn.com/abstract=890714 accessed on 10th July
2011.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/573/top-10-ma-deals-in-india-so-far/accessed
on 10th May 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dent_%26_Co, dated 26th July 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India, dated 26th July 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mysore, dated 26th July 2011.
Kamath (2001), pp. 235–237.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh accessed on 17th October, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan , dated 26th July 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasudhaiva_Kutumbakam#cite_ref-0 accessed on
15th September 2010.
390
http://layman-blog.blogspot.com/2010/05/mergers-and-acquisitionm-of-
domestic.html accessed on 17th October 2011.
http://mergersindiainfo.com/indiascene/indiascene6.htmlaccessed on 10th May
2010
http://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_FemaNotifications.aspx?Id=174#ann_b Accessed
on 30th May 2012
2010/accessed on 15th September 2011
2010/accessed on 17th October 2011
http://www.grammarist.com/usage/amalgam-amalgamation/accessed on 20th
July 2011
http://www.gsk.com/about/history.htm, dated 27th July 2011
on 25th May 2012
http://www.answers.com/topic/reliance-industries accessed on 10th June 2012
http://www.answers.com/library/Company+Histories-cid-11175017 accessed
on 10th June 2012
Hul (2008), ( http://www.hul.co.in/aboutus/ourhistory on 6th June 2011;
Indian Express (2011), ―India growth to beat China in 2012: World Bank‖,
14th January, New Delhi, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/indian-growth-
to-beat-china-in-2012-wb/737497/ accessed on 18th May 2012
Kar, R. and Soni, A. (2008), ―Mergers and Acquisitions in India: A strategic
impact analysis for the corporate enterprises in the post liberalization period‖,
391
University of Delhi, http://www.igidr.ac.in/money/MERGERS%20AND%20
ACQUISITIONS%20IN%20INDIA.pdf, Accessed on 15th May 2011.
Mark Hulbert, (2010), "It's Dippy to Fret About a Double-Dip Recession",
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB5000142405297020398310457536747189
6032724.html accessed on 20th July 2011
Mahesh, T. (2005), ―Impact of Mergers and Amalgamation on the
Performance of Indian Companies‖, http://129.3.20.41/eps/fin/papers/0506/
accessed on 3rd July 2010.
Mahesh K T (2005), ―Indian Takeover code in search of Excellence (A case
study Approach)‖, www.slideshare.net/ukabuka/takeovercode accessed on 3rd
July 2010.
Michael, P. (2008), ―Developing regional financial markets : the case of East
Asia‖,: DIE, (Discussion Paper / DeutschesInstitutfürEntwicklungspolitik ;
18/2008)www.die-gdi.de/CMS-Homepage/...nsf/.../DP%2018.2008.pdf
accessed on 10th July 2011.
Panneerselvam, S. and Ashok J. (2012), ―Merger Announcements and Stock
Price Behavior: Empirical Evidence from Indian Stock Market‖, International
Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Issue 83, pp.153-160.
http://www.internationalresearchjournal-offinanceandeconomics.com accessed
on 10th July 2012
Poddar, T. (2005) ―Alteration required in Indian Mergers and Acquisitions (M
& As) laws‖ http://www.indlaw.com/, date 14th Sep 2005.
Raghavan, S. V. S. (2000), Report of the High Level Committee on
Competition Policy.
392
http://cci.gov.in/images/media/ResearchReports/law_soumya_2009011412292
2.pdf accessed on 15th May 2011.
Rajesh Kumar, B. and Ashok, Y. (2010), ―Multiple events and wealth creation
In India: An empirical analysis‖, http://library.imtdubai.ac.ae/Faculty%20
Publication/Dr.rajesh/Multiple%20events%20%20and%20wealth%20creation.
pdf accessed on 15th July 2012.
Rotting, D. (2007), ―Successfully Managing International Mergers and
Acquisitions: A Descriptive Framework‖, International Business: Research
Teaching and Practice, Vol.1 (1), pp. 97-118. http://new.aibse.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/07Rottig.pdf accessed on 10th July 2011.
Sandeep Dasika, (2011), ―How Mergers And Acquisitions Are Shaping Up
India‖, http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2011/06/mergers-and-acquisitions-are-
shaping-up-india/, Accessed on 10th June 2011.
Simpson, D. and Hosken, D. (1998), ―Are Retailing Mergers Anticompetitive?
An Event Study Analysis‖, Federal Trade Commission, pp.3-
6http://www.ftc.gov/be/workpapers/wp216.pdf accessed on 15th May 2011.
Singh, M. and Goodrich, J. (2006), ―Succession in Family-Owned Businesses:
A Case Study of Reliance Industries-India‖ Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=954715 accessed on 20th July 2011.
Song, M. and Walking, R. (2004), ―Anticipation acquisitions and the bidder
return puzzle‖, Working Paper, Ohio State University.www.cob.ohio-
state.edu/fin/dice/seminars/walkling.pdf accessed on 10th July 2011.
Starks, L. and Wei, K. (2004) ―Cross-border mergers and differences in
corporate governance‖, European Finance Association Meeting
Proceeding.http://jcooney.ba.ttu.edu/Finance_Department_Fall_2004_Seminar
393
_Series_files/cross-border%20merger%20paper%20july%202004.pdf ,
accessed on 20th Nov 2010.
Time of India (2011), ―Court okays Essar Tele's reverse merger with arm‖,
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/20110422/indiabusiness/29462816
_1_vodafone-essar-ruias-india-securities accessed on 10th May 2011.
Viplaw (2008), ―Legal- Mergers in India‖, posted on 29, Aug 2008,
http://www.whereincity.com/articles/legal/7085.html as on 03rd July 2010.
William, K. (2008), ―The Truth About Reverse Mergers‖, Entrepreneurial
Business Law Journal, Vol. 2. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=
1028651 accessed on 10th July 2011.
World Investment Report (2008), http://www.unctad-
docs.org/files/UNCTAD-WIR2011-Full-en.pdf accessed on October 15, 2011
World Investment Report (2011), http://www.unctad-docs.org/files/
UNCTAD-WIR2011-Full-en.pdf accessed on October 15, 2011
on2nd June 2011
394

Mergers and Acquisitions in India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mergers and Acquisitions in India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mergers and Acquisitions in India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS IN INDIA

Under the supervision of

It is hereby declared that the thesis entitled “Mergers and Acquisitions in

university for awarding any degree or diploma.

Rahul Vasudevbhai Vyas

(Supervisor, Faculty of Management Studies)

C. Maheshwari, Professor in Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Management

to Prof. (Dr.) G. C. Maheshwari, for the intellectual discussion, valuable suggestions,

to Ms. Maheshwari who provided moral support like a mother.

I am also obliged to Prof. (Dr.) K. Pushpanadham, Associate Professor,

Faculty of Education and Psychology, M. S. University Baroda, Vadodara for

supportive and kind co-operation throughout the duration of the study by

accommodating my requests even at his inconvenience. I am grateful to Prof. Alla

Subba Rao, Professor, Department of Economics, M. S. University Baroda, Baroda

from various sources.

crucial for the successful completion of the work. I am especially thankful to my

Rahul Vasudevbhai Vyas

PARTICULARS PAGE No.

List of Figures VII

2. Mergers and Acquisitions in India 39

4. Legal Aspects of Mergers and Acquisitions 151

5. Wealth Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions: 206

6. Case Studies 262

7. Conclusion and Recommendations 351

Table No. Particulars Page No.

2.1 Value of cross-border M&A by region/economy of seller, 2003-May

2.2 Value of cross-border M&A by region/economy of purchaser, 2003-

2.3 Number of cross-border M&A by region/economy of seller, 2003-

May 2011 (Number of deals) 76

2.4 Number of cross-border M&A by region/economy of purchaser, 2003-

May 2011 (Number of deals) 78

2.5 Value of Cross-Border M&A, by Sector/Industry of seller, 2003 -May

2011 (Millions of Dollars) 80

2.6 Value of Cross-Border M&A, by Sector/Industry of Purchaser, 2003 -

May 2011 (Millions of Dollars) 81

2.7 M&A By Continent 82

2.8 Years of Mergers and Acquisition 83

2.9 M&A by Number of equity shares: Offer Size 83

2.10 M&A by Percentage of equity capital: Offer Percentage 84

2.11 M&A by Price of equity shares: Offer Price 84

2.12 M&A by objective of the offer 84

2.13 M&A by Targeted post offer stake of acquisition ( Total percentage of

2.14 M&A by Continent (Price in Million) 85

2.16 Value of cross-border M&A of Indian economy, 2003-May 2011

3.1 Evidence from short-run event studies 134

3.2 Evidence from long-run event studies 136

3.3 What RIL shareholders will get? 126

3.4 Demerger of RIL holdings 126

4.1 Comparison of Competition Act with MRTP 168

4.3 Filing Fee 162

4.4 Timelines and fast track endevour 163

4.6 Sectoral cap on Investment by persons residents outside India 194

5.3 Market reaction to M&A announcements (%) for Combined (Target +

5.4 Market reaction to M&A announcements (Median) for Acquirer

5.5 Market reaction to M&A announcements (Median) for Target

5.6 Market reaction to M&A announcements (Median) for Combined

(Target + Acquirer) 242

5.7 Market reaction to M&A announcements for Acquirer companies

segmented by Indian and Foreign Companies 242

segmented by Indian and Foreign Companies 243