167:
146:
22:
545:
services!" NO SOLICITING THE SALE OF SECURITES! Its illegal and does NOT belong in the fine pages of
Knowledge. You are being watched, and your IP address is tracked. Don't think the SEC is dumb. Watch it! Anything you post here, you'd BETTER be prepared to defend when the SEC asks about it. In fact, wiki does not let you post about yourself, so lay low and quit pumping your own business.
74:
53:
177:
778:
IPOs. But I've always understood it to mean that larger company A merges with company B, and keeps its (usually more established) name and much of its assets and lines of business, but company B's shareholders wind up with the majority of the combined company's ownership, and company B's management takes control. The classic examples here are
America West Airlines
700:
splitting it out for fear that I may mess the content up, but it seems clear that quotes such as "The disclosure is filed on Form 8-K" are not likely to be correct outside the US! Would someone who is confident in this subject area be happy to create a "USA Specific" (or similar) section and move the non-generic content to there please?
579:
Wow - this is an incredibly non-NPOV article. As a corporate lawyer who has worked on hundreds of public and private securities offerings over the years, I have yet to see a reverse merger that makes one dollar for private company shareholders. I am not saying this does not happen, but it is rare.
414:
Additionally, many shell companies carry forward what is known as a tax-loss. This means that a loss incurred in previous years can be applied to income in future years. This shelters future income from income taxes. Since most active public companies become dormant public companies after a string of
270:
It looks like much progress has been made on this article. Great work everyone. So far as references,... this is difficult to easily do as there are no textbooks or college courses about this stuff. Those of us who do it regularly and are "inside" learned by experience and training, and we had to
527:
I did a
Reverse Takeover with $ 25k down and financed $ 175k for a total of $ 200. $ 95 sounds a little too cheap if you ask me... maybe a year ago someone could have done that but not anymore. Not unless you want a crappy shell. I agree that IPO's can cost millions. Also, most IPO's are OTC BB
420:
It is highly unusual to preserve any benefit from the tax loss carry forward in a shell company. The tsx regs. normally reduce the loss carry forward by the percentage of the change in control. In a well structured reverse merger the private company should end up with 95% or more of the stock after
386:
I don't believe that it does either because in a traditional reverse takeover situation the acquirer is usually a shell, with little or no business activity. Obviously, SBC had a ton of business activity and actually had a ton more than the old AT&T. SBC truly acquired AT&T for AT&T's
777:
That's what I'm wondering, because that is my understanding of the term, and doesn't seem adequately covered here. This article seems entirely based around the idea of a private company buying a near-defunct publicly traded company as a way to go public while being less rigorous than the rules for
498:
started originally as a reverse takeover. Long before the series of acquisitions of EF Hutton, Shearson Lehman
Brothers (Citi spun off Lehman Brothers later and kept Shearson), Smith Barney (the name of the retail stockbrokerage), Salomon Brothers (hence the name of Citigroup's investment bank as
699:
This is a globally relevant subject (I understand this concept exists in at least
Australia & the UK as well), but this article contains a number of paragraphs of infomation which is relevant only to the USA, but is not marked as so. I'm not an expert in this, so I'm not really keen to attack
655:
Please let me know if I am wrong, but isn't "Reverse Merger" technically the Shell company "buying" the private company and then give the shareholders and management of the private company majority control of the newly formed public company (and then change its name to match the 'original private
430:
Normally, U.S. tax law dramatically reduces the available of a loss carryforward if a change in control has occurred. I believe that when a "ownership change"(as defined in IRC Section 382(g)) is deemed to have occurred, Section 382 of the
Internal Revenue Code reduces the availability of a loss
761:
in 2003 was an example, and I'm looking for the correct terminology to describe the transaction. (At the time, it was described to the press as a "merger of equals", but by both tax and accounting rules it was a purchase of Biogen by IDEC, as can be seen from the merger agreement and subsequent
679:
Um, would the disadvantage not be the same if there was no "bona fide public interest in the company" who tried to do an IPO instead of a RTO? What liquidity would be provided via a IPO for a company with no "bona fide public interest in the company"? Or, would the "pump-and-dump" (pardon my
544:
STOCK JOCKEYS: you know who you are. This is not your infomercial. Keep it objective or else we editors will pull the plug on your free advertising. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement! This article might as well say, "10 reasons why you should go public via RTO using my
317:
It's a matter of semantics. The NYSE proposed the deal and ended up with control, but technically, Archipelago did the acquiring. This is pretty common. The NYSE Group article refers to who wound up with management control, while the
Reverse Takeover article refers to which company was the
271:
scrap and claw our way into it, making mistakes for every bit we've learned. But if anyone can add some references to this thing it would be great. I know without BD approval, its hard to put anything in writing let alone sign your name to it. So thank you everyone for a great article. (
371:
I don't believe it would. Southwestern Bell was spun out of AT&T during the breakup, grew and matured as an independent company for some time, and then ultimately acquired the company from which it was originally spun out. I also believe both companies were already public.
580:
Clearly, this article was written by the same boiler room crew which keeps pinging me with those obnoxious pump and dump spam e-mails. I have tried to give the potential dupes reading this a bit of a taste of reality in the
Negative discussion, but I can only go so far.
322:
for the NYSE shares (which were not listed) to reflect the fact that NYSE was the acquirer. The
Aerospatiale/Matra deal was the same way, though I think there was no premium difference; Aerospatiale still wound up in charge even though they were "acquired" by Matra.
782:
taking over US Airways, and then later, that US Airways (which was still being run by the ex-America West management by that point) merging with
American Airlines, which inherited the US Airways management. That's inadequately covered here.
503:
acquired a broken down old shell called Commercial Credit--the reverse merger. That was the original reverse merger out of which Citigroup grew. In the end, Travelers and Citibank merged--supposedly as equals--and created
752:
blank-check company) takes over a non-public company as a way of reducing IPO transaction costs, then what do you call the situation in which one public company engineers its purchase by another public company, with the
735:
It's odd that this topic was not addressed on this page, given the immense amount of media foment we've seen about it (at least in the financial press in NY) over the last couple of years. Any will to work on that?
656:
company's name' etc)? If I got that right, shouldn't it be in the entry? Because right now, it sounds like it's the other way round. I don't know much about this issue, that's why I am asking. Thank you.
675:
Quote: "A major disadvantage of going public via a reverse merger is that such transactions only introduce liquidity to a previously private stock if there is bona fide public interest in the company."
810:
339:
a little bit to indicate that it was a reverse takeover, and thus hopefully eliminating some of the contradiction. I think my work on it still needs more work, though, but it's a start.
838:
128:
118:
853:
843:
833:
223:
848:
94:
523:
This needs a reference - IPOs can cost millions. Also, what evidence is there that a reverse takeover can be done for $ 150,000 max (as the quote seems to suggest)?
255:
Over the course of fifteen edits, I think I've got this article being a considerably better read now. I also learned a lot about reverse takeovers in the process.
519:
For a conventional IPO, it can cost as much as $ 200,000 just to release a preliminary prospectus. A reverse merger, however, can be done for $ 95,000 to $ 150,000.
81:
58:
454:
In this case, the contradiction remains, because the article is saying that it is highly unusual to preserve the tax benefit. Can anyone clarify this point?
762:
financial statements, despite the fact that the Biogen management remained in charge and the corporate headquarters "moved" from San Diego to Cambridge.)
680:
language - I don't know how else to say it) mechanism of the IPO-arranging firm be generating possibly-unwarranted public interest? Or something else?
233:
715:
I'll take a whack at it, but could you please provide specific sections where this problem exists? Would definitely help to get some specificity.
445:
That's not true. You can apply tax losses to different items on the balance sheet. Tax loss carry-forward is one of the great benefits of a RTO.--
469:
a technical "ownership change" when you take the shell... err, I mean "entity" since that's what we're supposed to call them now. I've done it. (
294:
The New York Stock Exchange was acquired by Archipelago Holdings to form NYSE Group, with the goal of taking the former, a mutual company, public.
635:
said that they got $ 1.6M from RM...Is that even possible? You just did a RM and you received more capital? (as a pink sheet?) I am confused...
302:
article, which states that the NYSE acquired Archipelago Holdings. Either this one needs to be fixed, or the NYSE Group article needs fixing.
858:
431:
carryforward to an amount equal to the product of the value of the old loss corporation and the applicable federal long-term tax-exempt rate.
199:
803:
Would the time Tandy bought Radio Shack and changed their name to Radio Shack qualify as an example, or is that something different?
528:
at a minimum, and $ 95k can at best land you an inactive pink sheet or a grey. $ 175 could get you a decent pink, cash & carry.
814:
744:
So if, as defined in this article, a reverse takeover is restricted to the situation where a non-operating but public company (
190:
151:
33:
474:
276:
21:
198:
articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
661:
640:
555:
546:
529:
470:
272:
39:
595:
Then fix it and make it right. You've got a username, and so it's time to put some more miles on it.
432:
415:
losses, or at least one large one, it is more likely that a shell company will offer this tax shelter.
806:
720:
685:
681:
632:
600:
569:
377:
344:
307:
260:
614:
581:
788:
618:
585:
455:
404:
I believe the following two paragraphs contradict each other. I'm not sure which one is right.. —
166:
145:
93:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
767:
657:
636:
319:
771:
705:
327:
716:
596:
565:
373:
340:
303:
256:
182:
784:
362:
827:
763:
318:
acquisition vehicle. Archipelago basically "paid" less in their (listed) shares than
505:
446:
388:
758:
701:
500:
405:
324:
421:
the mergr, thus reducing the tax loss carry forward by this amount for greater.
336:
299:
172:
90:
495:
757:
company's management taking control of the whole entity. The formation of
818:
792:
724:
709:
689:
665:
644:
622:
604:
589:
573:
558:
549:
532:
508:
478:
458:
449:
435:
408:
391:
381:
365:
348:
330:
311:
280:
264:
176:
73:
52:
195:
85:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
86:
465:
If you really know what you are doing, you can assume previous losses
564:
We shouldn't be giving ANYONE free advertising via Knowledge.
15:
361:
Would SBC taking over AT&T count as a reverse takeover?
554:
Other editors: Ignore this, it doesn't apply to you.
194:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
499:Salomon Smith Barney), Primerica, and Travelers.
839:Mid-importance Finance & Investment articles
103:Knowledge:WikiProject Finance & Investment
844:WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
834:Start-Class Finance & Investment articles
106:Template:WikiProject Finance & Investment
8:
854:Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
19:
804:
140:
47:
849:Start-Class WikiProject Business articles
142:
49:
811:2001:56A:F330:5A00:2C09:CD95:C380:3C3
7:
188:This article is within the scope of
82:WikiProject Finance & Investment
79:This article is within the scope of
631:I have a question regarding this -
288:Passage contradicts another article
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
671:Why am I confused on this detail?
613:I did, thanks. Added a paragraph.
109:Finance & Investment articles
175:
165:
144:
72:
51:
20:
739:
228:This article has been rated as
123:This article has been rated as
725:02:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
710:14:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
666:08:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
645:09:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
436:16:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
208:Knowledge:WikiProject Business
1:
859:WikiProject Business articles
793:17:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
772:01:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
540:WARNING: Non arms-length bias
214:WikiProject Business articles
211:Template:WikiProject Business
202:and see a list of open tasks.
97:and see a list of open tasks.
690:17:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
509:14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
450:14:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
392:14:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
265:02:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
651:Need a bit re-write, maybe?
409:07:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
875:
479:21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
459:22:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
281:21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
234:project's importance scale
129:project's importance scale
740:So what's the term for...
623:00:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
605:03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
590:00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
227:
160:
122:
67:
46:
574:09:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
559:03:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
550:03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
533:02:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
382:14:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
366:14:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
349:04:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
331:04:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
312:04:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
100:Finance & Investment
59:Finance & Investment
819:02:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
731:Chinese RTOs in the US?
799:Tandy Buys Radio Shack
28:This article is rated
298:This contradicts the
191:WikiProject Business
695:US Specific content
490:Citigroup/Travelers
34:content assessment
821:
809:comment added by
248:
247:
244:
243:
240:
239:
139:
138:
135:
134:
866:
556:Insightfullysaid
547:Insightfullysaid
535:Insightfullysaid
530:Insightfullysaid
494:The creation of
471:Insightfullysaid
292:Regarding this:
273:Insightfullysaid
216:
215:
212:
209:
206:
185:
180:
179:
169:
162:
161:
156:
148:
141:
111:
110:
107:
104:
101:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
874:
873:
869:
868:
867:
865:
864:
863:
824:
823:
801:
742:
733:
697:
673:
653:
633:College Tonight
542:
516:
492:
428:
402:
359:
290:
253:
251:Intense cleanup
213:
210:
207:
204:
203:
183:Business portal
181:
174:
154:
108:
105:
102:
99:
98:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
872:
870:
862:
861:
856:
851:
846:
841:
836:
826:
825:
800:
797:
796:
795:
741:
738:
732:
729:
728:
727:
696:
693:
672:
669:
652:
649:
648:
647:
628:
627:
626:
625:
608:
607:
577:
576:
541:
538:
537:
536:
515:
512:
491:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
463:
462:
461:
427:
424:
423:
422:
417:
416:
401:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
358:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
335:I played with
289:
286:
285:
284:
252:
249:
246:
245:
242:
241:
238:
237:
230:Mid-importance
226:
220:
219:
217:
200:the discussion
187:
186:
170:
158:
157:
155:Mid‑importance
149:
137:
136:
133:
132:
125:Mid-importance
121:
115:
114:
112:
95:the discussion
77:
65:
64:
62:Mid‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
871:
860:
857:
855:
852:
850:
847:
845:
842:
840:
837:
835:
832:
831:
829:
822:
820:
816:
812:
808:
798:
794:
790:
786:
781:
776:
775:
774:
773:
769:
765:
760:
756:
751:
747:
737:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
713:
712:
711:
707:
703:
694:
692:
691:
687:
683:
677:
670:
668:
667:
663:
659:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
629:
624:
620:
616:
612:
611:
610:
609:
606:
602:
598:
594:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:
561:
560:
557:
552:
551:
548:
539:
534:
531:
526:
525:
524:
521:
520:
513:
511:
510:
507:
502:
497:
489:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
457:
453:
452:
451:
448:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
425:
419:
418:
413:
412:
411:
410:
407:
399:
393:
390:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
356:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
333:
332:
329:
326:
325:Joseph/N328KF
321:
316:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
301:
296:
295:
287:
282:
278:
274:
269:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
250:
235:
231:
225:
222:
221:
218:
201:
197:
193:
192:
184:
178:
173:
171:
168:
164:
163:
159:
153:
150:
147:
143:
130:
126:
120:
117:
116:
113:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
805:— Preceding
802:
779:
754:
749:
745:
743:
734:
698:
678:
674:
658:TheAsianGURU
654:
637:TheAsianGURU
578:
553:
543:
522:
518:
517:
504:Citigroup.--
493:
466:
429:
403:
360:
297:
293:
291:
254:
229:
189:
124:
80:
40:WikiProjects
759:Biogen Idec
501:Sandy Weill
467:by avoiding
433:12.40.239.4
30:Start-class
828:Categories
717:SchuminWeb
682:Jornadigan
597:SchuminWeb
566:SchuminWeb
426:US tax law
400:Contradict
374:SchuminWeb
341:SchuminWeb
337:NYSE Group
304:SchuminWeb
300:NYSE Group
257:SchuminWeb
91:Investment
785:oknazevad
615:Ndriley97
582:Ndriley97
514:Reference
496:Citigroup
363:Jigen III
807:unsigned
780:de facto
764:121a0012
205:Business
196:business
152:Business
506:Getaway
456:Merry07
447:Getaway
389:Getaway
387:name.--
232:on the
127:on the
87:Finance
753:acquir
702:JohnGH
406:Cliffb
328:(Talk)
36:scale.
815:talk
789:talk
768:talk
750:SPAC
748:, a
746:i.e.
721:Talk
706:talk
686:talk
662:talk
641:talk
619:talk
601:Talk
586:talk
570:Talk
475:talk
378:Talk
345:Talk
308:Talk
277:talk
261:Talk
89:and
357:SBC
320:FMV
224:Mid
119:Mid
830::
817:)
791:)
770:)
755:ed
723:)
708:)
688:)
664:)
643:)
621:)
603:)
588:)
572:)
477:)
380:)
347:)
310:)
279:)
263:)
813:(
787:(
766:(
719:(
704:(
684:(
660:(
639:(
617:(
599:(
584:(
568:(
481:)
473:(
376:(
343:(
323:—
306:(
283:)
275:(
259:(
236:.
131:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.