9 semesters, 5 exam committees, 4 exam rules, 3 Registrar, 2 VC, 1 university: Next is what?

Well it is said that university experience is one of the finest in life and I am sure it is true for me but the only hitch is the over-overwhelmingness of such experience especially in the field of constantly changing exam rules. In last 9 semesters I have been evaluated under 4 different exam system, coupled with the ever changing administrative set up, this rolling stone of examination rules have never gathered any constancy, in this post I seek to bring forth the various exam system faced by my batch in last 4.5 years and then try to juxtapose it with the variation in the semester wise GPA of my class to try and find out if such excessive meddling in the examination process had any effect on the marks of the batch.
But before that let us go through the examination pattern followed in the last 9 semesters, at Indian law schools there are two types of subjects, compulsory which are basic law subjects like Contract law, Constitutional law etc. and the optionals which are usually specialization avenues and offer subjects like Comparative law, International contract law etc. Optional subject are offered at my university only from 6th semester.
Compulsory subjects
When I started my university career in 2005, the marks were divided into 6 categories, End Semester, Attendance, Subj. Viva, Project, Rough Draft, Project Viva, such extensive division ensured that there was continuous evaluation and students are focused on the course. In 4th semester the marks component of rough draft and project viva was scrapped. In 7th semester the component of attendance was also scrapped, but the most tremulous change came in 9th semester when the written component was hiked to 100 and to be later scaled down to 65%.

Semester 1		Semester 2	Semester 3
End Semester Attendance Subj. Viva Project Rough Draft Project Viva	60 5 5 20 5 5	Same as Semester 1	Same as Semester 1
Semester 4		Semester 5	Semester 6
End Semester Attendance Subj. Viva Project	60 5 5 30	Same as Semester 4	Same as Semester 4
Semester 7		Semester 8	Semester 9
End Semester Subj. Viva Project	65 5 30	Same as Semester 7	End Semester Subj. Viva Project	100 5 30

Optional subjects
In my 6th semester there were 5 marks component to optional courses viz. End Semester, Attendance, Subj. Viva, Project, Presentation just like in compulsory subjects in 7th semester the component of attendance was scrapped, in 8th semester the subject viva component was scrapped for optional, and like compulsory papers in 9th semester written component was hiked to 100 to be scaled down in final result to 50%.

Semester 1		Semester 2		Semester 3
No optional subjects		No optional subjects		No optional subjects
Semester 4		Semester 5		Semester 6
No optional subjects		No optional subjects		End Semester Attendance Subj. Viva Project Presentation	40 5 5 30 20
Semester 7		Semester 8		Semester 9
End Semester Subj. Viva Project Presentation	45 5 30 20	End Semester Project Presentation	50 30 20	End Semester Project Presentation	100 30 20

Also another important change in the marking pattern was the supposed introduction of bell curve for the first time in India.

Help Wikipedia, help yourself

Hi all, I guess as law students we have frequent deadlines, projects, papers, seminars, debates, moots etc. late night research on net, frantic calls to friends, sending out mails to the whole university if one is in third year or above (the first and second years lack the courage to spam the inboxes of others, though the trend is changing fast); for all such harried souls the first (and often the last) post of resort is Wikipedia, the free, open, community managed encyclopedia. We copy, paste, format into MS word and then as teachers dont like the wiki citation we put in a name of books, law review articles the more industrious ones take links given in the reference of the wiki article and cite the same (this is in-fact accepted by law review boards, though may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). Such has been the advent of wiki that in an offline conference an English professor of a reputed university confessed that she had taken up editing Wikipedia because most of the students copied from wiki and so it is best if they copy the right stuff. Now my friends, Wikipedia as we all know (if not search for Wikipedia in Wikipedia) is run by a non-profit organization, and Wikipedia is ad-free so it will depend on money donated by us, the users, to run its servers and other operations. A friend of mine who perhaps have never paid a single paisa for any software in life (his argument is that he pays for internet charges, so he should not be asked to pay for any other proprietary programs) has donated few dollars to the Wikimedia foundation. Just on another note, the only thing I remember from my first year economics class (apart from the supply and demand curve) is the concept of tragedy of commons, but year after year people have donated and kept Wikipedia alive so invest in wiki and just remember that investing in Wikipedia is investing on your future projects.

Takeover wars: The ‘Director’ strikes back

Few days ago I was watching a dubbed tamil movie where one of the protagonists has been thrown out of job by the owner of a factory the person swears revenge and then in the finale after lot of dhishum-dhisum the baddy loses and the hero gets the heroine and the film ends, the next day I read a story which has eerie similarity to the movie. A big industrialist Family controls two big companies manufacturing chemicals and cigarettes, a Director of the chemical factory quits (read whatever you want to read) after differences with the owning family. The Family takes a huge loan keeping in collateral some property but as clear title to the collateral could not be proved the shares of the cigarette factory owned by the Family (around 27%) is frozen by order of court. Sensing a perfect opportunity the former Director buys 6.5% of the target cigarette company and makes an unconditional open offer to the shareholders for 25% of the cigarette company’s share where around 67% is in public holding.

Let us analyze what can the Family do now, first its hands are tied by the court which attached the share by a court-appointed arbitrator, which means the voting rights on these shares have been frozen. Hence the only way to stop a hostile takeover is to use a third party like a white knight, white squire or put a plea before the individual shareholders to not support the takeover, if the management is good then most of the shareholders may reject the overtures of the raiders like holdermailing etc. The management is in the worst situation now, if the raider gets less that requisite holding then in absence of around 30% management stake to make to the magic figure the raider would need only 35% holding (presently he is aiming for around 31%); given that Indian s/h are notoriously meeting shy, it would be enough in the current situation if the raider gets 25-30% stake. If you want to read a similar real life takeover bid the read the following news paper report.

Takeover defenses: How effectively have Indian companies used them?

As the Indian economy moves towards greater competitive edge both in domestic and foreign markets, the internal structuring and bearings of the Indian companies are also undergoing a sea change. Such changes are usually wrought about by corporate maneuvers like merger, demerger, takeover, alliances, privatization of public sector undertakings etc. Takeover can be formally defined as ‘acquisition of a certain block of equity capital or controlling interest in a company which enables the acquirer to exercise control over the affairs of the company’ and can be categorized broadly into two types a hostile takeover in the former case and a friendly takeover in the latter.

As a company sitting over a pile of cash becomes a target of hostile takeover raids, the managers of the targets and sometimes a resourceful attorney start to devise plans in order to thwart the raiders ambition, sometime the defenses are questionable at best and methodology were unethical to say the least, however nonetheless any effective counter either using a loophole in law or by milking the system is seen as a victory for the defense as the raiders are always at a comparative advantage than the target as they can choose the time of raid which is mostly at the time the defenses are at the ebb. As obvious from the discussion in the paragraphs above a takeover is hostile when the target does not want to be acquired and rejects, if any, offer of ‘friendly’ takeover.
Takeover defense can be categorized into four broad segments, firstly to make the target look unattractive which can be achieved by Poison Pill, Crown jewel defense, Scorched earth defense, leveraged recapitalization, poison put, shark repellant, secondly to counterattack the raider by bidding to takeover the raider it includes Pac man defense, killer bees, thirdly to negotiate with the raider to call off the raid usually at a premium this may include Greenmail, targeted repurchase and fourthly ask for third party help like in white knight, black knight, white squire, bankmail, whitemail etc. This post will discuss the various strategies in brief and then would try to find out how wisely and effectively have the Indian companies used such defensive strategies wither knowingly or unknowingly to beat back the raiders.
Now let us discuss the various takeover defense strategy in brief and see how effective they have been when used in Indian scenario, before we venture we must however remember that most Indian companies are family owned business entities where they are themselves the promoters and hold more than 50% of the shares thereby making hostile takeover impossible, also the silent creeping acquisition of shares by raider route has also been blocked by SEBI through its mandatory disclosure by acquirer and other policies:
Poison Pill – This strategy involves issue of low price preferential shares to the existing shareholders to enlarge their capital base. This will make hostile takeover too expensive. Wikipedia says that it was invented by an US attorney to defend the El Paso Natural Gas takeover. This can also take shape of a special issue share which on completion of a hostile takeover entitles the holder to buy two shares at the price of one, thus increasing the price cost of acquisition. A variation would include a lobster trap is an anti-takeover strategy used by target firms. In a lobster trap, the target firm issues a charter that prevents individuals with more than 10% ownership of convertible securities (includes convertible bonds, convertible preferred stock, and warrants) from transferring these securities to voting stock. Other variations include flip in, flip out etc.
Crown jewel defense – When a company is threatened with takeover, the crown jewel defense is a strategy in which the target company sells off its most attractive assets to a friendly third party or spin off the valuable assets in a separate entity. Consequently, the unfriendly bidder is less attracted to the company assets. Other effects include dilution of holdings of the acquirer, making the takeover uneconomical to third parties, and adverse influence of current share prices.
Leveraged buy outs - In corporate finance, a leveraged recapitalization is a strategy often used to fend off a hostile acquisition. Under this strategy, a company incurs significant additional debt to repurchase stocks through a buyback program or distributes a large dividend among the current shareholders. This will cause the share price to increase significantly, making the company a less attractive takeover target. Following a leveraged recapitalization, a raider would pay more, thus minimizing any gains and acting as a deterrent. Download and try reading 'Barbarians at the gates' for more perspective in LBO.
Shark repellent – Amending the memorandum or articles of the company to make the takeover complex and costly and thereby making the target unattractive.
The scorched-earth defense – It is a form of risk arbitrage and anti-takeover strategy. When a target firm implements this provision, it will make an effort to make it unattractive to the hostile bidder. For example, a company may agree to liquidate or destroy all valuable assets, also called "crown jewels", or schedule debt repayment to be due immediately following a hostile takeover. In some cases, a scorched-earth defense may develop into an extreme anti-takeover defense called a "suicide pill"
The Pac-Man defense – It is when a company that is under a hostile takeover attempts to acquire its would-be buyer. The most quoted example in U.S. corporate history is the attempted hostile takeover of Martin Marietta by Bendix Corporation in 1982. In response, Martin Marietta started buying Bendix stock with the aim of assuming control over the company. The incident was labeled a "Pac-Man defense" in retrospect.
Killer bees – This defense uses firms or individuals that are employed by a target company to fend off a takeover bid; these include investment bankers (primary), accountants, attorneys, tax specialists, etc. They aid by utilizing various anti-takeover strategies, thereby making the target company economically unattractive and acquisition more costly.
Greenmailing – It is a variant of the corporate raid strategy of asset stripping. However, once having secured a large share of a target company, instead of completing the hostile takeover, the greenmailer offers to end the threat to the victim company by selling his share back to it, but at a substantial premium to the fair market stock price. Whilst benefitting the predator, the company and its shareholders are impoverished. From the viewpoint of the target, the ransom payment may be referred to as a goodbye kiss. The origin of the term as a business metaphor is unclear, although it will certainly be understood in context as kissing the greenmailer and, certainly, a few million dollars goodbye. A company which agrees to buy back the bidder's stockholding in the target avoids being taken over. In return, the bidder agrees to abandon the takeover attempt and may sign a confidential agreement with the greenmailer who will agree not to resume the manoeuvre for a period of time.
Lock-up provision - is a term used in corporate finance which refers to the option granted by a seller to a buyer to purchase a target company’s stock as a prelude to a takeover. The major or controlling shareholder is then effectively "locked-up" and is not free to sell the stocks to a party other than the designated party (potential buyer). Typically, a lockup agreement is required by an acquirer before making a bid and facilitates negotiation progress. Lock-ups can be “soft” (shareholder permitted to terminate if superior offer comes along) or “hard” (unconditional). These provisions may take the form of (i) break-up/termination fees, (ii) options given to target shareholders to buy target stock, (iii) rights given to target shareholders to purchase target assets, (iv) force the vote provisions in merger agreements, and (v) agreements with major shareholders (voting agreements, agreements to sell shares or agreements to tender). In a stock lock-up, the bidder is able to either purchase 1) authorized but unissued shares of the major or controlling stockholder, or 2) the shares of one or more large stockholders. The acquirer holds the option to exercise the shares at a higher price in the event of sale to a higher bidder, or to vote in favor of the acquirer’s bid. An asset lock-up occurs when the target firm grants an option for the acquisition of an asset. This is also known as a crown jewel lock-up. In many cases, lock-up provisions may impede “free competition”, and thereby restrict the market from acting naturally by preventing rival bids for the target company. Courts will approve lockups if they find that the lockup was used to encourage a bidder to make an offer and not as a device to end an auction or bidding process. Asset lock-ups, however, discourage other bidders, and are generally discouraged by the courts.
Targeted repurchase – It is a technique used to thwart a hostile takeover in which the target firm purchases back its own stock from an unfriendly bidder, usually at a price well above market value. In the event of a hostile takeover attempt, a target company can use a top-up to increase time for enhancing takeover defenses. Stock repurchases are often used as a tax-efficient method to put cash into shareholders' hands, rather than pay dividends. Sometimes, companies do this when they feel that their stock is undervalued on the open market. Other times, companies do this to provide a "bonus" to incentive compensation plans for employees. Rather than receive cash, recipients receive an asset that might appreciate in value faster than cash saved in a bank account. Another motive for stock repurchase is to protect the company against a takeover threat.
Bankmail – In a bankmail engagement, the bank of a target firm refuses financing options to firms with takeover bids. This takeover tool serves multiple purposes, which include 1) Thwarting merger acquisition through financial restrictions, 2) Increasing the transaction costs of the competitor’s firm to find other financial options, and 3) to permit more time for the target firm to develop other strategies or resources.
White knight – It may be a corporation, a private company, or a person that intends to help another firm. There are many types of white knights. Alternatively, a gray knight is an acquiring company that enters a bid for a hostile takeover in addition to the target firm and first bidder, perceived as more favorable than the black knight (unfriendly bidder), but less favorable than the white knight (friendly bidder). The first type refers to the friendly acquirer of a target firm in a hostile takeover attempt by another firm. The intention of the acquisition is to circumvent the takeover of the object of interest by a third, unfriendly entity, which is perceived to be less favorable. The knight might defeat the undesirable entity by offering a higher and more enticing bid, or strike a favorable deal with the management of the object of acquisition. The financial standing of the struggling firm could prevent any other entity being interested in an acquisition. The firm may already have huge debts to pay to its creditors, or worse, may already be bankrupt. In such a case, the knight, under huge risk, acquires the firm that is in crisis. After acquisition, the knight then rebuilds the firm, or integrates it into itself.
White Squire – A white squire is similar to a white knight, except that it only exercises a significant minority stake, as opposed to a majority stake. A white squire doesn't have the intent to take over a company, but rather serves as a figurehead to a defense to a hostile takeover. The white squire may often also get special voting rights for their equity stake.
Whitemail – It is an anti-takeover arrangement in which the target company will sell significantly discounted stock to a friendly third party. In return, the target company helps thwart takeover attempts, by raising the acquisition price of the raider, diluting the hostile bidder’s number of shares, and increasing the aggregate stock holdings of the company.