Linear voting rule limitation strategy to reduce the power of a unique new comer in a firm's capital
AbstractIn all the defensive measures against takeover bids, those based on rules limiting voting rights are generally cited as the most effective. Ironically, the supposed efficacy seems to have never been tested or modeled. This is precisely the subject of our article that focuses in terms of theoretical performance and limitations of the anti-takeover linear limitation of voting rights in the presence of a single-averse investor. If it is easily shown that this type of device can effectively counter any hostile takeover, this result is generally obtained with a setting that sends a wrong signal to the market in terms of governance. In any situation of anticipated hostile takeover, the paper proposes to determine the optimum configuration of the device. This new setting should help counter a hostile investor acting alone but must remain light enough to maintain market confidence and investors and to allow the holding of general meetings in good conditions.
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 InfoPaper provided by Department of Research, Ipag Business School in its series Working Papers with number 1.
Length: 19 pages
Date of creation: 01 May 2013
Date of revision:
Takeover bids; Anti-takeover Amendments; Corporate governance.;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- G18 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Government Policy and Regulation
- G30 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - General
- G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- DeAngelo, Harry & Rice, Edward M., 1983. "Antitakeover charter amendments and stockholder wealth," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 329-359, April.
- Jeffrey Wurgler, 1999.
"Financial Markets And The Allocation Of Capital,"
Yale School of Management Working Papers
ysm123, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Mar 2001.
- Grossman, Sanford J. & Hart, Oliver D., 1988. "One share-one vote and the market for corporate control," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 175-202, January.
- Paul A. Gompers & Joy L. Ishii & Andrew Metrick, 2002.
"Corporate Governance and Equity Prices,"
Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers
02-32, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
- Lucian Arye Bebchuk & John C. Coates IV & Guhan Subramanian, 2002. "The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence and Policy," NBER Working Papers 8974, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Malatesta, Paul H. & Walkling, Ralph A., 1988. "Poison pill securities : Stockholder wealth, profitability, and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 347-376, January.
- Mark Bagnoli, Barton L. Lipman, 1988. "Successful Takeovers without Exclusion," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 1(1), pages 89-110.
- Randall A. Heron & Erik Lie, 2006. "On the Use of Poison Pills and Defensive Payouts by Takeover Targets," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(4), pages 1783-1808, July.
- Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1986.
"Large Shareholders and Corporate Control,"
3606237, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Cohen, Alma, 2005.
"The costs of entrenched boards,"
Journal of Financial Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 409-433, November.
- Lucian Bebchuk, . "The Costs of Entrenched Boards," American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings 1091, American Law & Economics Association.
- Lucian Bebchuk & Alma Cohen, 2004. "The Costs of Entrenched Boards," NBER Working Papers 10587, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Robert Comment & G. William Schwert, 1995.
"Poison or Placebo? Evidence on the Deterrent and Wealth Effects of Modern Antitakeover Measures,"
NBER Working Papers
4316, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Comment, Robert & Schwert, G. William, 1995. "Poison or placebo? Evidence on the deterrence and wealth effects of modern antitakeover measures," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 3-43, September.
- Harris, Milton & Raviv, Artur, 1988. "Corporate governance : Voting rights and majority rules," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 203-235, January.
- Holmstrom, Bengt & Nalebuff, Barry, 1992. "To the Raider Goes the Surplus? A Reexamination of the Free-Rider Problem," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 37-62, Spring.
- Grossman, S J & Hart, O D, 1980. " Disclosure Laws and Takeover Bids," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 35(2), pages 323-34, May.
- Jensen, Michael C, 1988. "Takeovers: Their Causes and Consequences," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 21-48, Winter.
- Jensen, Michael C, 1986. "Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 323-29, May.
- Agrawal, Anup & Mandelker, Gershon N., 1990. "Large Shareholders and the Monitoring of Managers: The Case of Antitakeover Charter Amendments," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(02), pages 143-161, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ingmar Schumacher).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.