Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under current securities legislation in Ontario, conventional issuer bids are subject to both "identical consideration" and "pro rata take-up" requirements. A variation of the conventional issuer bid, known as a "Dutch auction" issuer bid, has started to gain prominence in Canada as a mechanism of share acquisition used by issuers to repurchase a portion of their outstanding shares. While Dutch auction issuer bids are distinct in that they allow shareholders to choose a minimum bid price from a range of prices set by the issuer, they are currently subject to the same legislative requirements as conventional issuer bids. \n \nIn this article, the author examines the origin of and policy behind the identical consideration and pro rata takeup requirements. The author argues that the current regulation of Dutch auctions contains a bias in favour of tendering shareholders and that the identical consideration and pro rata take-up requirements should not apply to these kinds of issuer bids. Omitting these requirements for Dutch auction issuer bids would allow equality of opportunity to be achieved. According to the author, this latter notion of equality constitutes the fairest result for both tendering and non-tendering shareholders in a Dutch auction issuer bid.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".