Search results

This study focuses on listed and over-the-counter (OTC) companies in the Taiwan Stock Exchange. It found that an increase in the ownership proportion of institutional investors (INs), including foreign investors, investment trusts, and dealers can enhance the informativeness of stock prices. The relationship between these factors follows an inverted U-shaped pattern, indicating that excessively high ownership ratios can actually lead to a decrease in the informativeness of stock prices. Additionally, increasing the ownership proportions of foreign investors and investment trusts can reduce the risk of stock price collapse, while dealers show no significant relationship in this regard. This study also reveals that the technical variable of the price deviation rate is an important explanatory factor for post-collapse returns. It is positively correlated with the magnitude of the price decline after a collapse, meaning that stocks with weaker pre-collapse performance experience larger post-collapse declines. When the data during the 2020 pandemic period are excluded, changes in foreign ownership ratios show a significant positive correlation with postcrash returns in both the long and short term. The significant correlation in the short term may be due to a high proportion of foreign ownership. Any reduction in this could put pressure on stock prices, and retail investors may follow suit and sell-off, using foreign investors as a reference. The significant correlation in the long term might be due to foreign investors themselves possibly also trying to avoid the pressure that their own short-term sell-offs could exert on stock prices. The changes in the ownership ratios of investment trusts and dealers indicate that medium and long-term changes have a significant impact on postcrash returns, while the changes in the major players' ownership show no significant correlation. When data from 2020 are included in the analysis, the significance of all INs decreases.

Wockhardt Ltd. is a global, research-based pharmaceuticals and biotechnology company headquartered in India. The company went through an ambitious period of growth, mainly using acquisitions as its primary inorganic growth strategy until the 2008 financial crisis. This period saw Wockhardt struggling to meet its financial obligations while at the same time confronting legal and regulatory challenges. Post this period, the company executed several strategic changes to its businesses to facilitate a recovery. The case asks students to assess Wockhardt’s strategic response to the crisis and its future success as a pharmaceutical company in an industry marked by intense competition.

The case is based on secondary data sources and publicly available information. The company’s data and its history over the past six decades have been examined. Newspaper articles, journal articles, company annual reports and analyst firm reports have been used to gather information and have been cited accordingly. Financial data have been obtained from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) Prowess database.

The case highlights some interesting findings from Wockhardt’s handling of its financial problems and subsequent recovery process. Key insights come from its multi-pronged strategy to first stabilize and then continue to expand its core pharmaceuticals business by identifying new markets for its products and alternate channels for growth.

Previous cases on Wockhardt have focused on the financial aspects of the crises, particularly the corporate debt restructuring (CDR) process that was undertaken, the challenges of hedging foreign currency risk and the drawbacks of using foreign currency convertible bonds (FCCBs). In this case, we emphasize the unique aspects of Wockhardt’s business strategy, from its initial acquisition-based inorganic growth, its crisis response and management and finally the strategic execution of its recovery and continued expansion.

Are divestitures really just the “flip side” of acquisitions? Both divestiture and acquisition are important processes for firm scope change. Frequently, these processes are considered to be “two sides of the same coin” wherein a divestiture is simply an acquisition performed “in reverse.” In contrast to this perspective, the authors submit that these two corporate strategic processes have fundamental differences in their motivations, implementation, and ramifications. Failure to recognize and address these differences could have serious consequences for firms, especially in the domains of capability development and deployment. In this chapter, the authors begin by recognizing the similarities between divestitures and acquisitions that have contributed to their “mirror image” reputations. The authors then identify and categorize the major differences between divestitures and acquisitions and explain how these distinctions can present significant challenges to firms when building and utilizing their corresponding divestiture and acquisition capabilities. Finally, the authors leverage these insights to develop not only suggestions for future research but also recommendations for firms to avoid succumbing to the fallacy of sameness between divestitures and acquisitions – and perhaps even successfully exploit it – when building, wielding, and honing the tools in their capability portfolios.

The primary purpose of this study is the development of Zimbabwe's rescue culture. The current framework for rescue operations was shaped by the historical development of laws pertaining to insolvency and liquidation. Socioeconomic pressures in Zimbabwe can be attributed to some of the main factors that led to the need for rescue legislation and restructuring, which in turn fueled the shift from a culture that supported credit to one that supported debtors. The aim of this study is to offer an overview of the key ideas and principles of the corporate rescue programs now implemented in Mauritius and to investigate the ways in which these ideas and principles impacted the newly enacted Zimbabwean Insolvency Act.

This study adopts a comparative legal approach using Zimbabwe and Mauritius as comparative case studies. The fact that both countries are former British colonies and their insolvency legal framework inspired by common law makes them appropriate to be compared. Legislation and case law are used to conduct the comparative study with the aim of Zimbabwe drawing lessons from the Mauritian legal framework on insolvency. Mauritius is a nearly ideal subject for a comparative case study because of its vibrant and fairly successful bankruptcy law framework, as well as its fictional corporate rescue culture. These might provide Zimbabwe with some motivation and guidance.

The legal framework on insolvency in Zimbabwe has been found to be too stringent and does not provide companies with any lifeline. There is arguably a tendency of forcing companies out of business rather than implementing a rescue culture. Selected aspects of the Mauritian legal framework on insolvency can be mapped onto the Zimbabwean system to implement a much-needed rescue culture given its challenging economic context.

This study contributes to comparative legal literature in the field of insolvency. It is among the very few research work that compares the legal structure on insolvency of Zimbabwe and Mauritius in a collaborative endeavor to enhance the insolvency law and its application in Zimbabwe.