Lord Mandelson Mansion House speech

Lord Mandelson Mansion House speech; Lord Mandelson speech SOT - For that reason I welcome last week's decision of the Takeover Panel to consult on the provisions of the Takeover Code, following Roger Carr's sensible suggestions reflecting his Cadbury/Kraft experience. I believe that there is a case for: Raising the voting threshold for securing a change of ownership to two thirds; Lowering the requirement for disclosure of share ownership during a bid from 1% to 0.5% so companies can see who is building up stakes on their register / Giving bidders less time to "put up or shut up" so that the phoney takeover war ends more quickly and properly evidenced bids must be tabled. Requiring bidders to set out publicly how they intend to finance their bids not just on day one, but over the long term, and their plans for the acquired company, including details of how they intend to make cost savings; and; Requiring greater transparency on advisors' fees and incentives. I also think there is a case for requiring all companies making significant bids in this country to put their plans to their own shareholders for scrutiny. Kraft after all had to bend over backwards to avoid asking Warren Buffet for his binding opinion, although I think we all got his message. - None of these measures would necessarily have prevented Cadbury changing hands – that is not the point. They would have enabled the owners of both companies more actively to scrutinize the transaction, and better weigh the long term prospects for the merged company. Some people have gone further and suggested that we need a new form of public interest test to guard British companies against foreign acquisition. I am happy to have an open debate about this, but I think we need to be very cautious about this. - Britain benefits from inward investment and an open market for corporate control internationally. A political test for policing foreign ownership runs the risk of becoming protectionist, and protectionis...