Search results

The rise in hostile corporate takeover attempts during the 1980s motivated many states to pass antitakeover legislation, often after lobbying by the management of affected firms. Empirical attempts to assess the impact of such statutes on firm value have yielded mixed results finding either no effect or a significant negative effect. We hypothesize that, while there may be a negative market reaction associated with state antitakeover legislation, the effect is temporary. In empirically examining the effects from the actions of nineteen states, we find that any negative market reactions tend to be followed by roughly equal positive counter‐reactions, suggesting a market overreaction.

This study seeks to investigate whether a firm's financial disclosure size can help investors predict performance.

Controlling for size and industry, the relationship between financial disclosure size and subsequent stock performance for all Standard and Poor's (S and P) 500 firms over a seven‐year period is examined.

It is found that firms with smaller 10‐Ks tend to have better subsequent performance relative to their industries. However, the findings suggest that the performance explanation may not lie in the size of the 10‐K itself. Firms with smaller 10‐Ks tend to perform better because they are smaller in terms of total assets and more focused, with fewer business segments.

While the study is limited to examination of S and P 500 firms, no consistent evidence is found of a relation between changes in a firm's disclosure size and future performance changes.

The results suggest that more disclosure relative to a firm's size is not necessarily bad. Investors attempting to predict future firm performance cannot use the firm's disclosure size alone.

This paper extends two recent Merrill Lynch studies that appear to contradict the extant financial literature's view that increased disclosure reduces the informational asymmetry problem. While the results confirm the findings of these studies, they suggest that the performance explanation may not lie in the size of the 10‐K itself.

This paper examines whether financial buyers are more likely to initiate takeovers of inefficient firms. We show that they indeed are and thus conclude that takeovers by financial buyers play a potentially beneficial role in the allocation of corporate assets in the US. economy. Our analysis of determinants of takeovers initiated by financial buyers uses an application of the methodology developed in Trimbath, Frydman and Frydman (2001). In order to illustrate efficiency enhancements introduced by financial buyers, we select Forstmann Little’s acquisition of General Instrument for a brief case study. We show that their aggressive programs of cost management substantially improved the efficiency of General Instrument. Moreover, it allowed General Instrument to expand research and development to become the global leader in high definition television.

The experimental parliamentary subsidy on knights' fees and freehold incomes from lands and rents of 1431 was the only English direct lay tax of the Middle Ages which broke down. As such, this subsidy has a clear historiographical significance, yet previous scholars have tended to overlook it on the grounds that parliament's annulment act of 1432 mandated the destruction of all fiscal administrative evidence. Many county assessments from 1431–1432 do, however, survive and are examined for the first time in this article as part of a detailed assessment of the fiscal and administrative context of the knights' fees and incomes tax. This impost constituted a royal response to excess expenditures associated with Henry VI's “Coronation Expedition” of 1429–1431, the scale of which marked a decisive break from the fiscal-military strategy of the 1420s. Widespread confusion regarding whether taxpayers ought to pay the feudal or the non-feudal component of the 1431 subsidy characterized its botched administration. Industrial scale under-assessment, moreover, emerged as a serious problem. Officials' attempts to provide a measure of fiscal compensation by unlawfully double-assessing many taxpayers served to increase administrative confusion and resulted in parliament's annulment act of 1432. This had serious consequences for the crown's finances, since the regime was saddled with budgetary and debt problems which would ultimately undermine the solvency of the Lancastrian state.

The unsatisfactory state of the law with regard to prosecutions for impoverished milk has been further exemplified in a series of prosecutions at Oldham. Three farmers were summoned for having sold milk “ not of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the purchaser,” and the evidence produced showed that the milk in each case was not only deficient as compared with the standard set by the Board of Agriculture, but even more deficient when compared with mixed samples taken at the farm. The Deputy Town Clerk, who conducted the prosecution, pointed out that the case of Wilkinson v. Clark clearly showed that the Inspectors were justified in going to the farm for a second sample, if the second was comparable with the first, and were entitled to rely on the Public Analyst's certificate for both samples. He argued that, in view of the enhanced price of milk, it was very necessary that the purchaser should be adequately protected and that he should obtain what he paid for — pure unadulterated milk. The defence in the first case was a denial of the milk having been tampered with, it being sold “ as it came from the cow.” Results of experiments at the Yorkshire College for Agricultural Education were quoted to show that wide variations in the quality of the milk might occur for which the farmer ought not to be held responsible. In the present case it was admitted that one of the cows was not milking satisfactorily, and had a “ hard udder.” The milk from this cow when examined closely, was stated in the defendant's evidence to be “ more like water.” This had only been found out on the morning when the first sample had gone into the churn for sale. The Bench, after consultation, expressed themselves satisfied that the milk had not been tampered with, and dismissed the summons.

At a recent inquest upon the body of a woman who was alleged to have died as the result of taking certain drugs for an improper purpose, one of the witnesses described himself as “an analyst and manufacturing chemist,” but when asked by the coroner what qualifications he had, he replied : “I have no qualifications whatever. What I know I learned from my father, who was a well‐known ‘F.C.S.’” Comment on the “F.C.S.” is needless.

Chocolate and cocoa are made from the “beans” or seeds of several small trees, natives of tropical America, of which Theobroma cacao (L.) is by far the most important. Cocoa beans were highly esteemed by the aborigines, especially the Aztecs of Mexico and Peru, who prepared from them beverages and foods. They were brought to the notice of Europeans by Cortez and other explorers, but were not extensively imported into Europe until the seventeenth century, about the time tea and coffee were introduced from the East. At present the world's supply comes chiefly from Venezuela, Guiana, Ecuador, Brazil, Trinidad, Cuba, Mexico, and other regions bordering on the Gulf of Mexico, being gathered in these regions from trees both wild and cultivated; and also to some extent from Java, Ceylon, Africa, and other parts of the Old World, where the tree has been successfully cultivated.

The Daily Dispatch publishes a letter from “ One of the Guard” at a war camp, who writes as follows:—

At a meeting of the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington on February 12th, 1918, Councillor Dr. A. J. Rice‐Oxley, Chairman of the Public Health Committee, brought up a Report as follows :—

Looks at wrongful termination and in particular, three landmark cases defining this in California, USA, e.g. Pugh v. See’s Candles, Inc., 1981; Wilkerson v. Wells Fargo Bank, 1989; Ralph Cotron v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc., 1998 (which is the current interpretation in the state of California). Gives the backgrounds involved in each case and the rulings made. Sums up that currently the view is: an employer can be factually wrong in its conclusions of whether a misconduct has occurred, as long as it has done a thorough investigation.