IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-723790.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Voluntary Financial Disclosure Matter? The Case of Fairness Opinions in Mergers and Acquisitions

Author

Listed:
  • Adam B. Badawi
  • Matthew D. Cain
  • Steven Davidoff Solomon

Abstract

We use the shifting nature of Delaware’s disclosure requirements for fairness opinions in tender offers to assess the impact of voluntary versus mandatory disclosure. To do so, we obtain the disclosures of details in fairness opinions by the targets of over 900 tender offers from 1995 to 2019. Over this period, the disclosure regime for tender offers transitioned from a voluntary one to a mandatory one. We document that the disclosure rates of details in fairness opinions are low under voluntary rules and rise steadily as Delaware courts became increasingly insistent on the disclosure of these details. We also show that proshareholder changes to tender offers are associated with disclosure of tender offer details only under the voluntary regime. These results highlight the complexity of predicting the effects of disclosure rules and provide empirical support for theoretical work that argues that mandatory-disclosure regimes can narrow opportunities to signal.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam B. Badawi & Matthew D. Cain & Steven Davidoff Solomon, 2023. "Does Voluntary Financial Disclosure Matter? The Case of Fairness Opinions in Mergers and Acquisitions," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(3), pages 535-555.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/723790
    DOI: 10.1086/723790
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/723790
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/723790
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/723790?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/723790. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.