Issuu on Google+

Management & Business ME601 – Assignment 1

21229643

1. Evaluate the possible advantages and disadvantages to the company case study you have chose being taken over. The process of a merger or takeover is surrounded by several decision influencing factors such as finance, law and market strategy to name a few. Also, when a company considers merging or take over another company, potential advantages and disadvantages may overcome. These are beyond doubt key motivational factors for whether or not to decide to go ahead with the process. In the following we will look into a case study and evaluate those same advantages and disadvantages in relation to the takeover of British airport operator BAA (BAA PLC) (Fig.1) by the Spanish construction consortium Ferrovial (Ferrovial S.A.) (Fig. 2) .

1. British airport consortium BAA.

2. Spanish construction group Ferrovial.

The purchase of BAA by the Ferrovial Group was a hostile takeover that took place during the summer of 2006 (BBC, 2006). Ferrovial had intensively pursued a takeover of the airport consortium for five months seeing their offers turned down until July when BAA finally accepted the £10.3 billion offer. This offer has beaten a concurrent, despite higher, offer from a consortium led by American bank, Goldman Sachs (Teather, 2006). For the takeover of the British airport operator, Ferrovial Group was legally assisted by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and had Citygroup as the financial partner, “enabling their client to outmanoeuvre rival bidder Goldman Sachs” (The Lawyer, 2006), who later reviewed their position. BAA was a British private airport operator who inherit their structure from the former public British Airport Authority after privatisation in 1986 during Margaret Thatcher's tenure as Prime Minister (Parker, 1998). At the time of the acquisition by the Ferrovial Group, BAA had a market share of 63% of the air traffic in the United Kingdom owning Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Southampton, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh airports, totalling the staggering number of approximately 143 million passengers handled per year. In addition to the assets in the United Kingdom BAA also held interests and participations in the airport business in Italy, Hungary and United States of America (BBC, 2006). Ferrovial is a Spanish private company, world leader in transportation infrastructures that employs around 57,000 employees, specialised in the construction, maintenance and management of highways as well as municipal services and public infrastructure construction. Their activity spans more than 800 cities and 25 countries (Ferrovial, 2014). Rafael del Pino whose family owns 58% of Ferrovial has been the chairman of the group since 1986 (The Telegraph, 2008). In this takeover there were verified a number of advantages. Weaver (2014) breaks down the advantages of acquisitions into the six most common, they are 1) speed – the most time-efficient strategy for growth as early research and development and implementation stages are skipped by buying into an existent structure, business portfolio and client database; 2) market power – increased market share and reduced competition stronghold; 3) new resources and competencies - a route for acquiring new competences not yet held inhouse and an easy way to raise capital for future ventures through improving the financial outlook in the long-term; 4) meeting stakeholder expectations – a way of yielding growth for investing and non-investing stakeholders; 5) financial gain - possibility of restructuring financially through acquisition and even stripping of acquired assets and 6) reduced entry barriers – an effective form of increasing the presence of a group, brand or company into formerly challenging new markets. All of the six most common advantages identified by Weaver were potentially verified in the takeover of BAA by Ferrovial, as it was the possibility for Ferrovial to enter into the UK transportation infrastructure market indicated by the fact the group already had a presence in the UK construction market through their subsidiary Amey (Ferrovial, 2014), and potentially saw the acquisition of infrastructural assets bound to expand over the forthcoming years as a speedy and effective way to increase their portfolio and at the same time boost their activity in the construction sector in a new market. With the increased profile in the UK through acquiring such a significant asset, Ferrovial possibly aimed restructuring financially as the acquisition of BAA accounted for 70% of the group's debts (The Economist, 2007) looking forward to later restructuring through internally refinancing the newly acquired asset. Stakeholders expectations were also potentially predicted as the several airports bound to expand in the short term could pose an excellent business opportunity for the existing subsidiary and subcontracted construction companies of the group.

1


Management & Business ME601 – Assignment 1

21229643

In the other hand, Weaver (2014) also compiles the six most common disadvantages of a takeover as follows: 1) Financial fallout – miscalculated circumstances, higher than expected costs and simply failure to materialise expected benefits and revenues can ultimately lead the acquiring company to financial meltdown or bankruptcy; 2) hefty costs – unanticipated costs can transform the final figures of a takeover deal and project into initially non-calculated outcomes; 3) integration issues – cultural corporate clashes with existing management and current philosophy internal to the acquired company as well as employee discontentment can cause friction and lead into unanticipated disruptions; 4) unrelated diversification – diverse services and product lines existing in the acquired company can affect the management of resources and competencies and deplete value; 5) poorly matched parter – the lack of synergies can lead to a difference in strategies that can cause unforeseen challenges and render the acquisition as a failure and 6) distraction for operations – acquiring company can divert from core strategies due to poor or inexperienced management in the sector. Uncertainty potentially played a part in terms of the disadvantages Ferrovial faced with the acquisition of BAA. Nevertheless aside from the hefty costs that some can argue to be neither an advantage nor a disadvantage, as the group could potentially gained more than could possibly loose. Some initial tension and resistance from the existing managerial and employee structure to the ownership by a foreign investor could potentially have been a challenge although it is historically possible to determine that in fact it did not take place. Potential legal barriers may also have been a preoccupation as BAA was a British owned company since privatisation in 1986, however uncertainty on whether the European Competition forcing BAA to sell part of its airports due to monopoly laws was already known at the time of the negotiations (BBC, 2006). Also uncertainty may have possibly been reduced in terms or operational goals, as Ferrovial was already in the transport infrastructural sector, construction and airports, the group had little experience in major hub airports (Teather, 2006). Nevertheless the airport operator market could have possibly be surrounded by negativity through integration issues, diversification and a poor match in terms of partner. Financially it was indeed a risky move as an investment in an acquisition totalling 70% of the debt of the group could have possibly threatened the group's general equity. To conclude it is possible to observe that the advantages were potentially far more rewarding to the growth of the purchasing group and its stakeholders than the eventual threat of a takeover gone wrong. 2. Explain the difference between a merger and a takeover. Mergers and acquisitions are processes of corporate integration. Both are essentially based on the premiss of organizational growth. It can be growth of market share, a managerial goal, or to diversify onto other markets. It can also be part of a defensive strategy (Worthington, Britton, 2009). “A corporate merger pools the ownership interests of shareholders of the previously seperate companies, whereas in an acquisition one firm buys the equity stake or assets of another” (Hyczynski , Buchanan, 2007). In the following we will be looking at the different types of integration and difference between mergers and takeovers also known as acquisitions. Business integration are in order to be categorised referred to as horizontal, conglomerate and vertical. Horizontal integration occurs when the integrating firms are in the same line of business, it can be: market extension integration – verified when a company integrates a business with similar products but not a competitor since it operate in different markets; or product extension integration – verified when both integrating parts operate in the same market with similar products (MBDA, n.d.). Conglomerate integration occurs when the two integrating entities are already involved but with unrelated activities, it can be: pure companies have nothing in common; or mixed - companies have similar goals (MBDA, n.d.). Vertical integration occurs when a company gains control over a supplier, a distributor or customer, it can be: forwards – when the control is gained over customers or distributors; or backwards – when the control is gained over suppliers (Strategic Management Insight, 2013). A merger generally occurs when two different legal entities combine and become a single legal entity towards the formation of a new company usually worth more than just the sum of its forming parts. It can be perceived as “a mutual decision made by two equals”. (Gallant, 2009) Huczynski and Buchanan (2007), also describe a merger as “a situation in which two companies voluntarily join together, pooling the ownership interests of the two sets of shareholders who come to own the newly combined entity.” For example, in 2005, German Adidas (Adidas – Salomon AG) announced plans to merge with American Reebok (Reebok International Limited) in a deal of 3.1 billion Euros. The purpose of this

2


Management & Business ME601 – Assignment 1

21229643

merger was clear as both entities were competing for number 2 and 3 positions in the market, the deal consolidated their position as number 2 following American Nike (NKE). (Casestudyinc, 2008) “In a merger of two corporations, the shareholders usually have their shares in the old company exchanged for an equal number of shares in the merged entity” (Gallant, 2009) (Fig.3).

3. The Adidas – Reebok Merger in 2005. (DW, 2006)

An acquisition (also known as a takeover) in the other hand is defined by Huczynski and Buchanan (2007) “as a situation in which one firm buys the equity stake or assets of another. “ A takeover takes place when a larger company purchases a much smaller one. “This combination of "unequals" can produce the same benefits as a merger, but it does not necessarily have to be a mutual decision. “ (Gallant, 2009) Takeovers can be hostile or friendly and contrary to mergers shareholders in the purchased company are offered a money sum per share by the acquiring company constituting an outright purchase of a firm's assets. For example, in 2006, Indian Tata (Tata Group) acquired the Aglo-Dutch Corus (Corus Steel) for 8.08 billion US Dollars. The purpose of this acquisition was the intention of Tata to strengthen their position in the European market as Corus has been renamed as Tata Europe (David, 2006) (Fig.4).

4. The Corus takeover by Tata in 2005. (Gyaniz, 2010)

“Mergers and takeovers are fundamentally different, however they both aim to form a single-hierarchy. Whichever form of combination is adopted, the assets of the two organizations are integrated and managed jointly, while their personnel are assigned positions within a single organisation hierarchy.” (Hyczynski , Buchanan, 2007) To conclude, and although its similarities in terms of goals and even strategies, mergers and takeovers differ by its surrounding procedural inequities.

3


Management & Business ME601 – Assignment 1

21229643

3. What regulatory obstacles are there to be observed when major companies are taken over (this may include national/government intervention and agreements)? Mergers and takeovers can be significantly affected by some obstacles of different natures. Price and economic context of the different regions of the globe are the main obstacles to organisational growth. (PWC, 2014) Nevertheless regulation can also pose a major inhibitor to companies expansion to new markets and regions as government intervention, legal ubiquities and trade agreements can limit and ultimately threaten organisational growth. According to a survey undertaken by the Interactive Policy Making (IPM) of the European Commission in 2005, obstacles to cross-border mergers and acquisitions divide into five categories and consequently into three subtypes. (fig.1) These are I. Legal Barriers; II. Tax Barriers; III. Implications of Supervisory Rules and Requirements; IV. Economic Barriers and V. Attitudinal Barriers. The subtypes are common to all five categories, they are a) Executional Risks; b) One-off Costs and c) Ongoing Costs. These obstacles, depending of category and subtype, can be legal uncertainty; defence mechanisms; restrictions on offers; employment legislation; data protection; uncertainty on VAT regime; taxation on dividends; misuse of supervisory powers; divergences in supervisory practices; market power; differences in economic cycles; political interference and consumers mistrust in foreign entities, just to name a few. (IPM, 2005) Other regions may differ to Europe due to a different set of regulations or other factors. Even inter-border mergers and takeovers can be limited due to uncertainty regarding a specific market, this can usually happens when the purchasing firm attempts to buy into a new unfamiliar market sector. In certain countries and regions a merger or takeover can be halted through restrictions on monopolies in certain activity sectors, and in some cases a company can be forced to withdraw from the merger if it poses a threat to competition regulations. For example in Europe the regulatory body is the European Competition Commission. However different regions have different rules, exceptions can be made as approval processes are surrounded by complexities and ambiguities. (Perera, 2013) All and all it can be said there are large variations of obstacles depending on different regions and different factors of interference, therefore firms have to be advised and conduct their research thoroughly prior to enter a merger and acquisition process in order to prevent failure. 4. Examine the reasons why a merger/takeover between two companies may not be appropriate. In theory mergers and takeovers have everything to compound to the most varied positive outcomes. The formula is simple, organizational growth usually translates into more added than just the sum of its forming parts. McClure, (n.d.) states “those who advocate mergers will argue that the merger will cut costs or boost revenues by more than enough to justify the price premium.” However that is not necessarily the case has several case studies have proven otherwise. In the following we will look at reasons for mergers and takeovers not to be appropriate in certain cases. Certain dilemmas and paradoxes of human nature can inhibit the positive course of a merger and a takeover and managerial and interpersonal interactions can influence theoretical presupposes. Buono and Bowditch (1989) state that “paradoxes and dilemmas are manifested in conflicting views about such issues as (1) the pace and the rate of merger related changes; (2) the timing, type and amount of information that should be shared with employees; (3) the manageability of organizational culture; (4) the relationship between strategic significance and successful inter-firm integration; (5) prescriptions and unqualified generalizations about post-acquisition tactics and strategies; and (6) the illusion of managerial control that typically exists during a merger or acquisition.” In a more generic note, and through his nearly two decades of experience as a mergers and acquisitions consultant across a multitude of industries, Siegenthaler, (2010) compiles a list of ten reasons for why mergers and takeovers go wrong. He names these ten pitfalls as “ignorance – as commercially sensitive data in often-times undisclosed prior to conclusion of the deal; no common vision - there is no point of the convergence on the horizon and the organisations will never blend; nasty surprises resulting from poor due

4


Management & Business ME601 – Assignment 1

21229643

diligence - sounds basic, but happens often; team resourcing; poor governance; poor communication; poor programme management; lack of courage; weak leadership; lost baby in the water - Companies contemplating a merger or acquisition too often omit to pinpoint what particular attributes make the other party attractive, and to define how they will ensure those attributes will not get lost when the organisation and the culture have changed.” An example of a merger gone wrong was the AOL (American Online Ltd.) - Time Warner (Time Warner Inc.) in 2001 in a 164 billion dollar deal. “Time Warner soon realised that the merger was not in its best interests, leading to a loss of $99bn in 2002. A de-merger agreement came in 2009.” (Barnett, Andrews, 2010) The deal was spurred by the enthusiasm and vision of young internet entrepreneurs during the height of what is historically known as “dotcom revolution”, who saw an association to the old conventional media an effective way of growth by cementing market leadership. This was proven a miscalculated strategy as most firms during this era found themselves worth billions however without significant revenue, this may have lead into several of the classical pitfalls that usually compromise the process of mergers and acquisitions. (BBC, 2009) In conclusion it can be said mergers and takeovers can be negatively influenced by technicalities, but mostly down to human factors. 5. Discuss what you think the outcome of the takeover will be when it is completed, giving the impact on staff/personnel, profit/costs to shareholders, location and relocation of the company and the continuing production of products and sales. The takeover process of a company is full of ubiquities and can bring upon iterations that can fundamentally change the most varied operational section of the acquired organisation. The post-acquisition period can be therefore a time of drastic transformations in company structure, management and leadership. It can impact all stakeholders involved and even ultimately obliterate a brand from the market. Continuity and change can play a decisive role in integration. In the post-acquisition period internal uncertainty will arise, in the following we will be looking into different management and leadership styles, their iterations and other internal impacts on an acquired company following a takeover and discuss potential outcomes from the BAA takeover by the Ferrovial Group in 2006 as a case study. According to Huczynski and Buchanan (2007), “in an acquisition one firm buys the equity stake or the assets of another”, it is on this premiss that the new shareholders can decide whether or not to integrate and adopt a single-hierarchy or to maintain the existing hierarchic format of the company taken over as a subsidiary. In this case study, BAA saw its hierarchic structure unchanged being therefore “swallowed” into the Ferrovial hierarchy (see image) (Ferrovial, 2006). This was a likely outcome as despite Ferrovial's experience in managing transport infrastructures, this expertise was mainly focused on the highway business and despite Ferrovial previous ownership of a percentage of Bristol airport and the whole of Belfast, little was known inhouse about the management of hub airports. Bendix (1977) refers to “The Three Types of Legitimate Rule”, written by German sociologist Max Weber. Weber (1922) divides leaders into three legitimate types: charismatic – born, not made, can be found in all types of organisations, often in business, politics and religion; traditional; authority is derided from birth or natural succession, common in business owned by families; and appointed – made, not born, authority derides from held position, can be achieved through merit and common in politics or business owned by multiple shareholders. In the case study, the leadership at BAA could have remained unchanged and even initially unchallenged as the leader was likely to be appointed through merit and trust in order to maintain and protect shareholders interests. According to Rensis Likert (1967), the management framework divides into four systems: exploitative – authoritative – full authoritarian system, “with little communication and no joint teamwork”; benevolent – authoritative – paternalistic system, “condescending from a master-servant point”, communication and teamwork is very limited; consultative – a towards democracy system, motivation is achieved through rewards, communication and teamwork are of moderate amount; and participative – group system - a democratic style (that derives from the human relations school of management of Henry Fayol), communication and teamwork is strongly encouraged (Likert, 1967). In the case study is very likely that the management style has shifted to a more authoritative style, possibly benevolent but borderline exploitative due to the hierarchic downgrade of the company as BAA moved to the foot of the hierarchic chain (Fig.5)

5


Management & Business ME601 – Assignment 1

21229643

5. Ferrovial – Organisational chart post-acquisition of BAA. (Ferrovial, 2006).

“It is crucial from an employee’s point of view to perceive some degree of stability even in times of major organizational change” (Ulrich, Wieseke, van Dick, 2005). A takeover can have a severe impact on the morale of the employees and atmosphere within the company as uncertainty may have the power to threaten the personnel's pyramid in terms of hierarchy of needs. Ferrovial's biding vehicle, ADI (Airport Development and Investment Limited) who guarantee at the time of the takeover to safeguard the jobs and benefits of all employees within the BAA group, however stated it would look into ways of reducing costs (BBC, 2006). This may have been a way to achieve “social peace” and avoid action from the trade unions and at the same time serenade the concerns of the existing personnel. It would be highly likely that the changes affecting the workforce were introduced progressively. Wages may have even been increased while benefits were phased out by stages. However this measure may have had the effect of giving the workforce the stability and security they needed through perception of increased wealth through pay rise, the cuts on benefits such as bonuses and pension schemes may have helped achieve significant cost reductions in the long-term for the company. Also progressively, new starters may have seen completely different terms of employment with not so rewarding contracts as the existing workforce that by logics of seniority will retire first. Some minor activities within the organization may have been outsourced or subcontracted in a way of reducing operational costs but also to offset potential liabilities. This may have been the case of activities that were not part of the core business of the group. Redundancies of older staff inherited from the days of state ownership of the company structure with higher wages and benefits may have also been considered as well as some of the older management. Companies are to satisfy shareholders demands to operate on behalf of their interests, although often dormant or passive in the company's hierarchy by delegating the decisions to directors and senior executives they expect to reap significant profits from their investment (Worthington, Britton, 2009). Ferrovial resorted to financial agreements in order to take over BAA, its assets and equity, according to The Economist (2007), the £10,3 billion deal accounted for 70% of Ferrovial's total debts, however the group reports a different figure of nearly 60% (Ferrovial, 2006) (Fig.6).

6. Weight of BAA's takeover in Ferrovial's debts and post-acquisition consolidation. (Ferrovial, 2006)

6


Management & Business ME601 – Assignment 1

21229643

Asset stripping is “the process of buying an undervalued company with the intent to sell off its assets for a profit. The individual assets of the company, such as its equipment and property, may be more valuable than the company as a whole due to such factors as poor management or poor economic conditions” (Investopedia, n.d). In a short period of time upon completing the deal and utilizing the new acquired assets from BAA to complete the financial restructuring of the group, Ferrovial initiated a process of sale of some of the assets. The first of the former assets from BAA to be alienated was World Duty Free, sold to Italian Autogrill for £546.6 million in 2008, this was a result of a sharp fall in profits referring to the previous financial year when the group also sold its participation on Bristol Airport (BBC, 2008). Between 2008 and 2013 Ferrovial sold Gatwick (Mulligan, 2009) , Edinburgh (Wilson 2012) and Stansted (Infrappp, 2012). It also announced the sale of a large part of their participation in the former BAA group to several different investors. As a result the name BAA has been replaced by Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited, “owned by FGP Topco Limited, a consortium owned and led by the infrastructure specialist Ferrovial S.A. (25.00%), Qatar Holding LLC (20.00%), Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (13.29%), the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (11.88%), Alinda Capital Partners (11.18%), China Investment Corporation (10.00%) and Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) (8.65%) “ (Heathrow, 2014) (Fig.7)

7. New structure of Heathrow in 2014 (Heathrow, 2014)

Much can be speculated whether these decisions would have been initial intention of asset stripping by the Ferrovial Group or pressure from shareholders due to a takeover gone wrong. It is known that Ferrovial accumulated losses in the immediate years following the takeover and it is opened to discussion what in motivated the decision, since despite the losses, Ferrovial used the new acquired assets to refinance itself during the credit crunch of 2008 and also through the possible concession of construction work to its subsidiaries in the construction sector. The question of relocation of the company is something that is highly unlikely to be verified as the assets are airport infrastructures and therefore vital to the economy of the country and possibly subject to governmental and legal restrictions. Much has been speculated over the question of expansion since the company has recently submitted plans for expansion (Heathrow, 2013) (Fig.8) and relocation is still an uncertainty despite announced plans for a new airport located in the Thames Estuary (BBC, 2013) (Fig.9).

8. Heathrow plans for expansion. (Heathrow, 2013)

9.Plans for Thames Estuary Airport. (BBC, 2013)

7


Management & Business ME601 – Assignment 1

21229643

To conclude, and although it can be said there could have been many impacts arising from the integration, namely impacts on personnel benefits; iterations on hierarchic system and changes in terms of ownership of services, the hostile takeover of BAA by the Ferrovial Group could have been a purely financial manoeuvre and also a clear case of asset stripping. Several factors indicate the same may have happened as the acquired company effectively no longer exists (Fig.10).

10. The new brand image of former BAA. (Heathrow, 2014)

8


Management & Business ME601 – Assignment 1

21229643

Bibliography and References Archer, D. (2007) Mergers and acquisitions: change, culture and the “leaderful” organisation. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.leadership.org.uk/files/uploads/72.pdf (accessed 25/03/14) Barnett, E. Andrews, A. (2010) AOL merger was 'the biggest mistake in corporate history', believes Time Warner chief Jeff Bewkes. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8031227/AOLmerger-was-the-biggest-mistake-in-corporate-history-believes-Time-Warner-chief-Jeff-Bewkes.html (accessed 23/03/14) Bendix,R. (1977) Max Weber – An Intellectual Portrait. 1st Edition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press Limited BBC, (2006) BAA agrees to Ferrovial takeover. [online] s.n. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5050932.stm (accessed 23/03/14) BBC, (2008) BAA sells World Duty Free shops. [online] s.n. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7287156.stm (accessed on 26/03/14) BBC, (2009) Why AOL Time Warner failed to change the world. [online] s.n. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8403308.stm (accessed 22/03/14) BBC, (2013) 'Boris Island' London Airport designs unveiled. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24895965 (accessed 27/03/14) Buono, A. Bowditch, J. (1989) The Human Side Of Mergers and Acquisitions 1st Edition. Washington: Jossey-Bass Inc. Casestuduinc, (2008) Adidas Reebok Merger Case Study. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.casestudyinc.com/adidas-reebokmerger-case-study (accessed 21/03/14) David, R. (2006) Tata Acquires Euro Steelmaker Corus. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.forbes.com/2006/10/22/tata-corus-mnabiz-cx_rd_1022corus.html (accessed 22/03/14) DW, (2006) EU Approves Adidas-Reebok Merger. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.dw.de/eu-approves-adidas-reebok-merger/a1870303-1 (accessed 21/03/14) Ferrovial, (2006) Building the Future. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.ferrovial.com/outside/groups/contenidos_generales/documents/documento/~edisp/doc_presentacion_inversores_22.pdf (accessed 25/03/14) Gallant, C. (2009) Investopedia [online]. s.n. Available from: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/mergervstakeover.asp (accessed 18/03/14) Gyaniz, (2010) Corus Rebranded as Tata Steel.[online] s.n. Available from: http://gyaniz.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/corus-rebrandedas-tata-steel/ (accessed 19/03/14) Heathrow, (2013) A New Approach: Heathrow's options for connecting the UK to growth. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow/Downloads/PDF/a-new-approach_LHR.pdf (accessed 27/03/14) Heathrow, (2014) About Heathrow Airport: Company Information. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.heathrowairport.com/aboutus/company-news-and-information/company-information (accessed 27/03/14) Huczynski, A. Buchanan, D. (2007) Organizational Behaviour. 6th Edition. Harlow: Pearsons Educated Limited Infrappp, (2012) Ferrovial (BAA) sells Stansted Airport to Machester Airports Group and IFM. [online] s.n. Available from: http://infrapppworld.com/2012/08/ferrovial-baa-to-sell-stansted-airport.html (accessed 26/03/14) Investopedia, (n.d.) Asset Stripping. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/assetstripping.asp (accessed 25/03/2014) IPM, (2005) Survey on obstacles to cross-border mergers and acquisitions. [online] s.n. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/docs/cross-sector/mergers/consultation_en.pdf (accessed 22/03/14) Likert, R. (1967) The human organization:its management and value. 1st Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill MBDA, (n.d.) 5 Types of Company Mergers. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.mbda.gov/node/1409 (accessed 23/03/14) McClure, B. (n.d.) Mergers and Acquisitions: Why They Can Fail. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.investopedia.com/university/mergers/mergers5.asp (accessed 21/03/14) Mulligan, M. (2009) Ferrovial sells Gatwick airport. [online] s.n. Madrid: Available from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c3341b7e-bea2-11deb4ab-00144feab49a.html#axzz2xOCqphzz (accessed 26/03/14) Parker, D. (1998) The Performance of BAA Before and After Privatisation. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.bath.ac.uk/ejournals/jtep/pdf/Volume_33_Part_2_133-145.pdf (accessed 25/03/14)

9


Management & Business ME601 – Assignment 1

21229643

Perera, P. (2013) Some Perspectives on Global Opportunities and Obstacles in Financial Institution M&A. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/international_law_news/2013/summer/some_perspectives_on_global_opportunities_and_obsta cles_in_financial_institution_ma.html (accessed 21/03/14) PWC, (2014) Matching merger enthusiasm to reality. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/asset-management/assetmanagement-insights/merger-enthusiasm.jhtml (accessed 23/03/14) Siegenthaler, P. (2010) Ten reasons mergers and acquisitions fail. [online] s.n, Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/7924100/Ten-reasons-mergers-and-acquisitions-fail.html (acessed 22/03/14) Strategic Management Insight, (2013) Vertical Integration. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/topics/verticalintegration.html (accessed 22/03/14) Teather, D. (2006) Ferrovial lands BAA with final offer of £10.3bn. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/jun/07/theairlineindustry.travelnews (accessed 22/03/14) The Economist, (2007) The man who bought trouble.[online] s.n. Available from: http://www.economist.com/node/9440733 (accessed 24/03/14) The Lawyer, (2006) BAA takeover saga ends as Goldman Sachs bows out to victorious Ferrovial. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.thelawyer.com/analysis/market-analysis/practice-areas/city-analysis/baa-takeover-saga-ends-as-goldman-sachs-bows-outto-victorious-ferrovial/120794.article (accessed 24/03/14) The Telegraph, (2008) Is it terminal for BAA and Ferrovial financing? [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2784496/Is-it-terminal-for-BAA-and-Ferrovial-financing.html (accessed 24/03/14) Ullrich, J. Wieseke, J. van Dick, R. (2005) Continuity and Change in Mergers and Acquisitions: A Social Identity Case Study of a German Industrial Merger. Marburg:Journal of Management Studies Weaver, L. (2014) Acquisition Pros and Cons. [online] s.n. Available from: http://mergersandacquisitions.biz/pros-and-cons/ (accessed 24/03/14) Wilson, H. (2012) BAA sells Edinburgh airport for £807m to GIP. [online] s.n. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9221515/BAA-sells-Edinburgh-airport-for-807m-to-GIP.html (accessed 26/03/14) Worthington, I. Britton, C. (2009) The Business Environment. 6th Edition. Harlow: Pearsons Educated Limited

10


Assignment - ME601