Search results

Poison pill securities can be used to deter takeover activity by making the acquisition cost prohibitive or to increase bargaining power of target firms. Poison pills, which are also known as shareholder rights plans, are typically used in conjunction with other takeover defense mechanisms, such as anti‐takeover charter amendments or dual classes of stock. This study examines the role that debt plays as an anti‐takeover strategy in the presence of poison pills. The results show that, on average, capital markets have little reaction to poison pill announcements. A regression equation, however, shows that announcement period abnormal returns are positively related to leverage ratios. This paper provides empirical evidence that the capital structure of firms plays an important role in the perceived strength of poison pills.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of stock price crash risk on the adoption of poison pills.

The authors estimate logit and probit regressions. Their sample includes 185 Brazilian public firms for the period 2010–2018. Following previous studies, the authors use the negative skewness of firm-specific weekly returns and the down-to-up volatility of firm-specific weekly returns as measures of firm's stock price crash risk. As proxies of poison pills, the authors employ the “conventional” poison pills in their baseline models and the “eternity” poison pills, which prevent the removal of poison pills from bylaws, in additional models.

The authors find that stock price crash risk measures are not associated with poison pill adoption. However, although stock price crash risk does not lead to poison pill adoption as a complementary corporate governance mechanism that protects firms against hostile takeover attempts, further results show that managers do not draw on stock price crash risk as a pretext to entrench themselves. Additional analyses also highlight that CEO power seems to play a role in moderating the relationship between stock price crash risk and eternity poison pill adoption.

The authors contribute to the literature on stock price crash risk, which calls for research in international contexts to better understand the effect of stock price crash risk on country-specific idiosyncratic features. The authors discuss a controversial anti-takeover mechanism that has been debated by Brazilian policymakers.

Poison pill adoption is often considered as the most effective tactic to fend off an unsolicited takeover bid. However, it is difficult to identify the deterrent effect because the adoption is naturally endogenous. The purpose of this paper is to use plausibly exogenous instruments to mitigate the endogeneity problem.

The author employs two econometric models: the linear probability model and the bivariate probit model to examine the effect of poison pills on the outcome of a takeover.

Using a sample of 655 unsolicited takeovers, the author finds that poison pills substantially reduce the likelihood that a takeover bid, once undesirably placed, is completed. This negative impact strongly supports the manager entrenchment hypothesis in that managers adopt poison pills to ensure the continuation of their private benefits. However, the author finds no strong evidence consistent with the shareholder interest hypothesis that poison pills enhance the management’s ability to negotiate higher premiums or reject inadequate offers.

The demise of the market for unsolicited takeovers with the disappearance of poison pills can be explained by the fact that poison pills, if adopted, will have an absolute deterrent effect on the takeover likelihood of success, and targets always have the power to adopt them instantly.

There should be policies to limit the power of managers to adopt poison pills because it causes the entrenchment problem which will negatively affect the firm value.

The author tackles the problem of the endogeneity of poison pill adoptions. The author shows that poison pills have a strong negative effect on the takeover outcome and the result can explain the decreasing number of unsolicited takeovers.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the role of large equity ownership by both institutions and outside block shareholders in monitoring the board of directors’ decision to initially adopt defense mechanisms and the subsequent capital market reaction to the adoption.

This paper employs an empirical methodology that controls for selection bias. Multiple regressions were employed to assess the relationship among the variables.

Stockholder wealth effects of poison pills are positively related to pressure‐resistant institutions, which is consistent with effective monitoring. The wealth effects of poison pills, however, are negatively related to pressure‐sensitive investors, consistent with passivity. No empirical relation was found between ownership structure and shareholder approved amendments such as classified boards and fair price amendments.

This study was conducted as a large sample analysis over an earlier time period that was more applicable for evaluating anti‐takeover techniques.

The results are consistent with pressure‐resistant institutions actively monitoring to prevent unilaterally implemented defense mechanisms of all types, whereas pressure‐sensitive institutions appear to more readily accept poison pills.

These results suggest that failing to control for the type of outside investor may not clearly portray documented relations in other corporate governance studies.

Innovations in takeover financing, less restrictive regulatory requirements, and a general desire to enhance market position have led to a substantial increase in corporate takeover and restructuring activity. In response target firm managers have become increasingly active in devising defensive strategies and tactics designed to ward off hostile bidders. It is well‐ documented, however, that large wealth gains accrue to target firm shareholders in mergers and acquisitions. Thus the emergence of such terms as “shark repellents”, “poison pills”, and “greenmail”, raises the question of whose best interests are really being served by antitakeover measures.

We document the emergence of the Lead Independent Director (LID) board role in a sample of U.S. firms from 1999–2015. We find that firms that adopt an LID board role are larger and have more independent boards, higher institutional investor holdings, and an NYSE listing. Firms with greater anticipated benefits from monitoring also adopt an LID role, e.g., firms with dual CEO-Chairman, with more takeover defense mechanisms, and with higher cash holdings. Using an event study methodology, we find that investors respond positively to the adoption of an LID board role. Lastly, using instrumental variables to address endogeneity in the LID board role, we find that firms with an LID are more likely to terminate poorly performing CEOs. Taken as a whole, these results suggest that the LID board role enhances firm value and improves the quality of corporate governance.

We study the spatial diffusion of stock backdating, an instance of corporate misconduct about which public information was virtually absent until 2005. Contrary to the findings of Bizjack, Lemmon, and Whitby (2009), our results reveal that this “invisible” practice did not diffuse through board interlocks. Rather, stock backdating spread through geographic proximity: firms were more likely to backdate stock options to the extent that other firms located geographically close to them had done so. Lending support to the importance of localized interactions among members of the local business elite, the effect of geographical proximity was conditional on high levels of local board interlocks. Our findings regarding the differential impact of geographic proximity and board interlocks on the diffusion of this invisible practice are analogous to the diffusion pattern of controversial practices proposed by Davis and Greve (1997).

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of corporate governance strength as measured by the Gompers governance index (gindex) and other related factors on corporate risk as measured by implied volatility of returns.

The research incorporates implied volatility as the measure of risk, as compared to earlier studies that have used historic volatility measures. Governance variables include the Gompers Index, as well as other measures to control for firm size, ownership and leverage.

The findings indicate that corporate risk is significantly inversely‐related with the gindex, which essentially gauges how extensively antitakeover provisions are adopted by a firm. Firm size is the other variable significant in both univariate and multivariate models. Financial leverage and the percentage of outsiders on the board are significantly related to firm risk when not controlling for other factors. Board percentage of voting power does not appear to affect firm riskiness statistically.

Future research needs to examine specifically why higher takeover defenses lead to lower implied volatility. This includes exploring whether the lower level of expected volatility is due to lower levels of takeover activity or whether firms with poor governance assume a suboptimal amount of risk.

The paper contributes to the literature by the use of implied volatility as the measure of risk. The results are robust and provide further support for the relationship between corporate governance and risk. While counter to initial expectations, these results suggest, at the very least, a firm with good governance may not necessarily have low implied volatility in its stock price.

The authors study the shareholder wealth effects of the adoption and subsequent litigation confirming the validity of shareholder right plans that are enacted to protect a firm’s net operating loss (NOL) carry forwards (tax benefit preservation plans (TBPPs)). The purpose of this paper is to expand the understanding of nontraditional shareholder rights plans, which are becoming increasingly more common.

This paper considers abnormal returns around TBPP adoptions and Delaware Court rulings that validated their use. The authors study 118 plans adopted between 1998 and 2011. Abnormal returns are measured using both a market model and a performance-matched sample.

The authors find that abnormal returns are negative at the announcement of a new TBPP. However, the full impact of plan adoption on share prices is not evident until the Delaware Courts validated their use. The Delaware Court rulings in the case of Selectica, Inc. v. Versata Enterprises, Inc. and Trilogy, Inc. are associated with additional negative wealth effects for both prior plan adopters and the firms most likely to consider adopting a plan. These results suggest that entrenchment concerns tend to outweigh the protection of NOL carry forwards when firms adopt TBPPs.

This study was the first to consider the adoption of TBPPs. Currently, it is the only study that considers Delaware Court rulings related to these plans, which allows us to successfully disentangle the entrenchment hypothesis from the potential alternative hypothesis that the negative announcement period returns are driven by investors updating their expectations for firm performance.

A corporate takeover (with major stake in equity) gives the acquirer the right to appoint majority of directors in the target’s board to control its management and policy decisions. When such acquisition is unsolicited and unwelcome, it becomes a “hostile takeover.” In such cases, the acquirer is said to be a “raider” and the raider’s management team may act under the influence of “hubris” implying that they seek to acquire the target for their own personal motives ignoring pure economic gains for the owners of both the companies. The hostile bidder makes all possible efforts to justify the takeover by paying handsome premium over the target’s fairly valued share price. In a hostile takeover, the target management or target promoters resist and fight tooth and nail against the raider to convey to the world that the bidder’s acts are not in the best interest of all their stakeholders. Any unsolicited and hostile takeover offer is generally viewed as oppression, domination or coercion by the bidding company against the target and its management. In a hostile bid, the existing target management always believes that whatever they do is in best interest of everyone. They feel complacent and assume that their standards of corporate governance are of highest order. Therefore, they are unwilling to succumb to the aggression and hostility of another corporate entity for takeover. The “so-called” victimized target resorts to all means to gain sympathy from peers, press, common shareholders, employees and general public. In today’s regulated market for corporate control, an intelligent hostile bidder would probably not acquire a business unless it has good strategic or financial reasons to do so. Hence, “stewardship” on the part of bidder’s management is very important in case of any hostile takeover. This chapter derives motivation from a three-and-half-decade-old abortive hostile takeover bid in India by Caparo Group of the UK and also the recently completed hostile takeover in India of a famous mid-sized information technology company, Mindtree by Larsen & Toubro, a major conglomerate. This research aims at developing a distinctive model to demonstrate that unsolicited hostile takeover may not be a good mechanism for a successful business combination.