6.

Openness to full or partial ownership

As Roche want to acquire or merge with renowned pharmaceuticals in Bangladesh, they need to
plan for its forms of ownership. Corporate ownership transparency helps tackle corruption,
reduce investment risk and improve global governance. Beneficial ownership data answers the
fundamental question in any anti-corruption investigation (NASDAQ: Halo). The following
section describes the guidance of full or partial ownership:

If Roche want to gain a controlling interest in the target firm it

may initiate a creeping takeover strategy in which it purchases target voting stock in relatively
small increments until it has gained effective control of the firm. This may occur at less than 50.1
percent if the target firm’s ownership is widely dispersed. If about 60 percent of a firm’s eligible
shareholders vote in elections for directors, a minority owning as little as 35 percent can vote in
its own slate of directors. The company should pay more for the initial voting shares than for
shares acquired at a later time. The amount in excess of the target’s current share price paid to
target shareholders tendering their shares first often is referred to as a control premium.

The disadvantages to owning less than 100 percent of the target’s voting stock
include the potential for dissident minority shareholders to disrupt efforts to implement important
management decisions, the cost incurred in providing financial statements to both majority and
minority shareholders, and current accounting and tax rules (Kasonde et al., 2019). Owning
less than 50.1 percent means that the target cannot be consolidated for purposes of financial
reporting but rather must be accounted for using the equity method. After considering these
issues, the firm should focus on full ownership rather than partial ownership.