The Economist, Digitisation shakes up corporate-bond markets

Today shares and many derivatives can be traded with a few simple clicks (or even in fully automated fashion, using algorithms). But buying and selling bonds, especially corporate bonds, is still an old-fashioned business. Over four-fifths of trading in American corporate bonds still takes place with a dealer, usually over the phone.

One new source of liquidity has come from exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Shares in bond ETFs, like those composed of equities, track indices, allowing investors access to a basket of bonds. But the impact for bonds is more significant, because bonds are otherwise traded so rarely. Indeed, bond ETFs are more liquid than the assets the funds own. But ETFs still need dealers: the institutional investors that create and redeem ETF shares have so far had to rely either on voice-trading or RFQ systems.

オリンパスの和解—Graham v. Olympus

オリンパスが証券クラスアクションの和解に合意しました。2011年11月14日に提起されていたものです。和解金額は,260万ドルです。和解をするのは弁護士費用等を考えると合理的なのですが,また,訴訟がどのへんの段階まで進んだのか等にもよりますが(また,訴訟がどのへんの段階まで進んだのか等にもよりますがよく存じ上げません),二年も経ってないうちに和解するのは少し早い印象です。

(追記)motion to dismissのhearingの直前での和解となったようです。一応,ECFから入手できる資料へのリンクを張っておきます

via Olympus

Why Merger Cases Settle

Wilson Sonsiniが書いた記事について,Kevin M. LaCroixがコメントしています。

組織再編に関する訴訟について,日本でも興味が高まっているようなので,参考になると思います。

Clark suggests two reasons the cases settle. The first is that the litigation is time=consuming and expensive. Most targets of this type of litigation just “want someone to make it go away,” and the settlement allows the defendants to avoid the irksome and expensive litigation activity. Based on these considerations, the decision for most defendants in this type of litigation is “pretty clear” because “settling makes a lot of sense.”

But, according to Clark, there is a second reason these cases settle. Clark’s observations about this additional reason is the more interesting part of Clark’s analysis. According to Clark, another reason the cases settle is that post-merger litigation can drag on interminably because it can be difficult to resolve. The difficulty of resolving the litigation post-close provides another incentive for the defendants to try to resolve the case prior to the transaction closing.

via WSG&R, The D&O Diary