Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1997:132 AI generated

Fees paid in a takeover could affect security value, requiring public disclosure under securities law.

Case Number KHO:1997:132
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that a fee paid by a bidder in a takeover could influence the value of securities and thus required public disclosure. The court found that the potential harm to investors from non-disclosure outweighed the harm to the bidder, rejecting the argument for an exception. Consequently, the obligation to disclose was upheld based on the balance of interests between investor protection and bidder interests.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ArvopaperimarkkinaL 2 luku 7 §; ArvopaperimarkkinaL 2 luku 11 §: Fees paid in a takeover may affect security value, requiring public disclosure when investor harm outweighs bidder harm.

Keywords

AI generated
securities disclosure obligation takeover fee impact value assessment requirement investor protection balance public announcement duty exception criteria analysis market transparency rule

Cited Legislation

AI generated
ArvopaperimarkkinaL 2 luku 7 §
ArvopaperimarkkinaL 2 luku 7 §
ArvopaperimarkkinaL 2 luku 11 §
ArvopaperimarkkinaL 2 luku 11 §
AI generated
kho-other_2016_2630
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal; Financial Supervision Authority must assess document confidentiality case-by-case.
kho-other_2017_3384
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal regarding public access to asylum case files and lawyer lists.
kho-other_2015_3660
Supreme Administrative Court allows competitor access to bid response delays but denies detailed trade secrets.
kho-other_2017_524
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal against refusal to release internal quality report containing staff evaluations.
market_1981_8
Market court dismisses claims for injunctions based on contract breach and trade secret misuse, ruling it lacks jurisdiction. The court found no unfair competition violations and stated the market court cannot adjudicate private contract disputes or trade secret claims. Consequently, the application was rejected, and the parties bear their own costs.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

OTC-listalla olleen liikkeeseenlaskijan yrityskaupassa maksama vastike saattoi vaikuttaa arvopaperimarkkinalain 2 luvun 7 §:n 1 mom:ssa tarkoitetuin tavoin arvopaperin arvoon ja oli siten julkistettava. Verrattaessa julkistamatta jättämisestä sijoittajille aiheutuvia haittoja julkistamisen liikkeeseenlaskijalle aiheuttamiin haittoihin katsottiin, ettei arvopaperimarkkinalain 2 luvun 11 §:n 1 ja 2 mom:ssa tarkoitettuja edellytyksiä poikkeuksen myöntämiseen julkistamisvelvollisuudesta ollut.

ArvopaperimarkkinaL 2 luku 7 §

ArvopaperimarkkinaL 2 luku 11 §

HE:318/1992 vp HE:157/1988 vp

Komiteanmietintö_1991:48 Direktiivi 79/279/ETY

Direktiivi 89/592/ETY