On the Use of Poison Pills and Defensive Payouts by Takeover Targets
AbstractUsing a large sample of unsolicited takeover attempts, we examine the determinants and effects of targets' choice to adopt poison pills either before or after unsolicited offers and to initiate defensive payouts. The probability of poison pill adoptions decreases with insider ownership, whereas the probability of defensive repurchases increases at a decreasing rate with insider ownership. Poison pills contribute to bid increases and higher bids, yet do not alter the likelihood of takeover. Defensive share repurchases slightly reduce the takeover likelihood but do not appear to harm shareholders, perhaps because they tend to fend off lowball bids or increase the firm's leverage.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by University of Chicago Press in its journal Journal of Business.
Volume (Year): 79 (2006)
Issue (Month): 4 (July)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JB/
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Arikawa, Yasuhiro & Mitsusada, Yosuke, 2011. "The adoption of poison pills and managerial entrenchment: Evidence from Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 63-77, January.
- Frederic Teulon & Bruno-Laurent Moschetto, 2013. "Linear voting rule limitation strategy to reduce the power of a unique new comer in a firm's capital," Working Papers 1, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
- Harris, Oneil & Madura, Jeff, 2010. "Cause and effects of poison pill adoptions by spinoff units," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 307-330, July.
- Madura, Jeff & Ngo, Thanh & Viale, Ariel M., 2012. "Why do merger premiums vary across industries and over time?," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 49-62.
- Albert Banal‐Estañol & Paul Heidhues & Rainer Nitsche & Jo Seldeslachts, 2010.
"Screening And Merger Activity,"
Journal of Industrial Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 794-817, December.
- Banal-Estanol, Albert & Heidhues, Paul & Nitsche, Rainer & Seldeslachts, Jo, 2009. "Screening and Merger Activity," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 270, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
- Stráska, Miroslava & Waller, Gregory, 2010. "Do antitakeover provisions harm shareholders?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 487-497, September.
- Bates, Thomas W. & Becher, David A. & Lemmon, Michael L., 2008. "Board classification and managerial entrenchment: Evidence from the market for corporate control," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 656-677, March.
- Baker, Malcolm & Pan, Xin & Wurgler, Jeffrey, 2012. "The effect of reference point prices on mergers and acquisitions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 49-71.
- Eckbo, B. Espen, 2009. "Bidding strategies and takeover premiums: A review," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 149-178, February.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.