Shareholder litigation in mergers and acquisitions

Using hand-collected data, we examine the targeting of shareholder class action lawsuits in merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions, and the associations of these lawsuits with offer completion rates and takeover premia. We find that M&A offers subject to shareholder lawsuits are completed at a significantly lower rate than offers not subject to litigation, after controlling for selection bias, different judicial standards, major offer characteristics, M&A financial and legal advisor reputations as well as industry and year fixed effects. M&A offers subject to shareholder lawsuits have significantly higher takeover premia in completed deals, after controlling for the same factors. Economically, the expected rise in takeover premia more than offsets the fall in the probability of deal completion, resulting in a positive expected gain to target shareholders. However, in general, target stock price reactions to bid announcements do not appear to fully anticipate the positive expected gain from potential litigation. We find that during a merger wave characterized by friendly single-bidder offers, shareholder litigation substitutes for the presence of a rival bidder by policing low-ball bids and forcing offer price improvement by the bidder.     

Price and Probability: Decomposing the Takeover Effects of Anti-Takeover Provisions

We study the effects of anti-takeover provisions (ATPs) on the takeover probability, the takeover premium, and target selection. Voting to remove an ATP increases both the takeover probability and the takeover premium, that is, there is no evidence of a trade-off between premiums and takeover probabilities. We provide causal estimates based on shareholder proposals to remove ATPs and address the endogenous selection of targets through bounding techniques. The positive premium effect in less protected firms is driven by better bidder-target matching and merger synergies.     

Board Composition, Board Effectiveness, and the Observed Form of Takeover Bids

We show that bidding firms consider target board characteristicswhen deciding takeover offer types and initial offer premiums.We study a sample of 436 proposed negotiated mergers and bypassoffers. Firms with individuals holding the titles of both chiefexecutive officer (CEO) and board chair are more likely to receivebypass offers. These offers are more likely to be successfuland generate higher target shareholder gains over the takeoveroffer period. When the target's board is independent, the targetis less likely to receive a high premium and the offer is lesslikely to succeed.     

Shareholder litigation rights and capital structure decisions

We exploit the staggered adoption of the universal demand (UD) laws across U.S. states, which impedes shareholder rights to initiate derivative lawsuits, as a quasi-natural experiment to examine the relation between shareholder litigation rights and firm capital structures. We find that weaker shareholder litigation rights due to the UD laws adoption lead to higher financial leverage, which enhances firm value. Furthermore, the positive relation between the UD laws adoption and financial leverage is more pronounced for firms exposed to higher shareholder litigation risk ex ante or financially constrained firms. Our evidence is consistent with lower shareholder litigation threats motivating firms to increase financial leverage.     

The consequences of limiting shareholder litigation: Evidence from exclusive forum provisions

In response to an explosion of shareholder litigation, many firms have adopted exclusive forum provisions which limit lawsuits to courts in a firm's state of incorporation. This paper examines the consequences of a required venue for shareholder litigation. Delaware-incorporated companies experience significant increases in firm value around exogenous events that confirmed the use of a specified forum. Reduced legal costs and the designation of the domicile court as the sole forum to hear shareholder claims contribute to the increase in firm value. Overall, these findings suggest that a required venue for shareholder litigation benefits firms by eliminating multi-jurisdictional lawsuits and reducing the threat of claims with little merit.     

Undoing the powerful anti-takeover force of staggered boards

We examine cases where managers announce an intention to de-stagger their boards via proxy proposals or board action. The literature has established the staggered board as the most consequential of all takeover defenses and one that destroys wealth. Thus, dismantling staggered boards benefits shareholders. We study the wealth effects and motives behind this change in governance within a conditional event study. We find that de-staggering the board creates wealth and that shareholder activism is an important catalyst for pushing through this change. Moreover, in the period preceding Sarbanes–Oxley, investor reaction indicates a perception that de-staggering firms are more likely to be takeover targets.     

Shareholder litigation rights and corporate acquisitions

We examine the effect of shareholder litigation rights on managers' acquisition decisions. Our experimental design exploits a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on July 2, 1999 that resulted in a reduction in shareholder class actions. We find that, since the ruling, firms in Ninth Circuit states acquire larger targets. Furthermore, acquirers' returns are lower in these states, especially for those with weaker corporate governance. Further analysis shows that value destruction is the result of managers' freedom to conduct empire-building acquisitions using overvalued equity. Overall, our findings indicate the importance of shareholder litigation as an external governance mechanism.     

Board, audit committee and restatement-induced class action lawsuits

We examine the influence of monitoring provided by the board and audit committee on the probability of restatement-induced securities class action lawsuits using a sample of firms that have restated earnings in the period of 1997-2002. Logistic regression of the probability of restatement-induced class action lawsuits indicates a negative association between proportion of independent board members and the likelihood of restatement-induced class action lawsuits. We also find that when the market reacts more negatively to restatement announcements, shareholders are more likely to initiate a class action lawsuit. Finally, we document that restatement of revenues is positively associated with the likelihood of restatement-induced shareholder litigation. Our results are robust after controlling for the restatement initiator, restatements categorized as irregularities and Blue Ribbon Recommendations.     

Securities class actions and conditional conservatism: Evidence from two legal events

We use two US court rulings as exogenous shocks to firms' litigation environment and examine the changes in conservative financial reporting following these court decisions. The Silicon Graphics ruling in 1999 imposed a heightened pleading standard and discouraged the filing of shareholder lawsuits against firms with headquarters in the Ninth Circuit. The Tellabs ruling in 2007, however, effectively reversed the Silicon Graphics ruling and made it easier to file securities litigation against Ninth Circuit firms. We predict and find that the reduced litigation risk following the Silicon Graphics ruling discourages conservative reporting for Ninth Circuit firms. By contrast, the elevated threat of shareholder lawsuits following the Tellabs ruling encourages conservative reporting for Ninth Circuit firms relative to non-Ninth Circuit firms. The disciplining effect of the threat of shareholder lawsuits on conservatism is stronger for firms facing higher ex ante litigation risk. The litigation-risk-induced increase (decrease) in reporting conservatism leads to higher (lower) firm valuations.     

Shareholder litigation rights and corporate payout policy: Evidence from universal demand laws

This study exploits the staggered adoption of universal demand (UD) laws, which place significant obstacles to derivative lawsuits and thus, undermine shareholders’ rights by 23 states in the United States (U.S.) from 1989 to 2005 as a quasi-natural experiment to examine the effects of shareholder litigation rights on corporate payout policy. Weakened litigation rights for shareholders materially increase firms’ payout ratios. The effect is more pronounced for firms exposed to higher shareholder litigation risk ex-ante, firms with higher institutional holdings, and ones financially unconstrained. Overall, the findings are consistent with lower shareholder litigation threats motivating firms to increase dividend payouts.     

The role of institutional investors in public-to-private transactions

In Italy, as in many other European countries, listed firms will normally go dark through controlling owner-initiated tender offers. We find that institutional investors play a central role in the bid process and can protect minority shareholders from being frozen out in the bid. Specifically, tender offers are less likely to succeed when a firm has institutional investors in its ownership structure. When public-to-private offers are accepted, bid premiums are significantly greater if a financial institution (particularly when it is foreign, independent or activist) has a stake in the firm. We explore the effect of a number of hitherto unexplored factors on the takeover premium and find that shareholder agreements facilitate public-to-private acquisitions. Other factors, such as a threat to merge the target if the bid fails, or external validation of the offer price, have no impact on either the likelihood of delisting or the premium paid by the bidder.     

Golden Parachutes: Incentive Aligners,Management Entrenchers,or Takeover Bid Signals?

In this paper we investigate the effect of golden parachute (GP) adoptions on shareholder wealth. We control for the potential effect a GP adoption has on the probability that a firm will receive a takeover bid by investigating the wealth effects for firms that are in play when the GP is adopted. We find that announcements are wealth neutral when firms are in play and wealth increasing when firms are not in play when a GP is adopted. The results suggest that GPs have no influence on the success of a tender offer, refuting the hypotheses that they either align manager and shareholder interests or that they entrench inefficient managers. The difference in the results for in-play and not-in-play firms is consistent with the hypothesis that GPs signal an increased likelihood that a firm will receive a takeover bid.     

An international study of shareholder protection in freeze-out M&A transactions

Freeze-out M&A transactions are those initiated by controlling shareholders to acquire minority shareholders' ownership in the firm. We compare international freeze-out mergers in 35 countries in merger premium, choice of payment, and completion probability. We find greater merger premium and probability of cash payment but lower deal completion rates in countries with stronger minority shareholder protection. Using detailed minority shareholder protection indexes, we find some evidence that the ex-post anti-self-dealing law enforcement is more important than the ex-ante anti-self-dealing law regulation in protecting minority shareholder value. Our study provides new evidence of minority shareholder protection in the setting of conflicts of interest between majority and minority shareholders.     

The Role of ESOPs in Takeover Contests

This article examines both the shareholder wealth effects of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) announced by firms subject to takeover pressure and the takeover incidence of targets with and without ESOPs. Although we do not find that defensive ESOPs significantly reduce shareholder wealth on average, we identify two factors—the change in managerial and employee ownership due to the ESOP and the simultaneous announcement of other defensive tactics—that are associated with negative stock price reactions. We find that ESOPs are strong deterrents to takeover. ESOP targets that are acquired earn higher returns than targets without ESOPs, but the difference is not statistically significant.     

Have changing takeover defense rules and strategies entrenched management and damaged shareholders? The case of defeated takeover bids

Using the Delaware Supreme Court's Time-Warner decision of July 1989 as a focal point, we study defeated takeover bids before and after July 1989 to assess the direct effects of stronger takeover impediments on takeover defense tactics used to defeat bids and the resulting shareholder wealth outcomes and managerial turnover. We find that firms that defeated takeover bids after July 1989 shifted away from the use of active takeover defenses (repurchases, special dividends, greenmail, and leverage increases). Nevertheless, shareholders of firms that defeat a takeover experienced slightly better wealth outcomes in the 1990s than in the 1980s. We also find increased managerial turnover rates after defeating a takeover bid post Time-Warner, suggesting that managers that defeat hostile takeover bids did not become more entrenched due to greater takeover impediments relative to prior years.     

Shareholder Litigation and Corporate Disclosure: Evidence from Derivative Lawsuits

Using the staggered adoption of universal demand (UD) laws in the United States, we study the effect of shareholder litigation risk on corporate disclosure. We find that disclosure significantly increases after UD laws make it more difficult to file derivative lawsuits. Specifically, firms issue more earnings forecasts and voluntary 8‐K filings, and increase the length of management discussion and analysis (MD&A) in their 10‐K filings. We further assess the direct and indirect channels through which UD laws affect firms' disclosure policies. We find that the effect of UD laws on corporate disclosure is driven by firms facing relatively higher ex ante derivative litigation risk and higher operating uncertainty, as well as firms for which shareholder litigation is a more important mechanism to discipline managers.     

Does Weak Governance Cause Weak Stock Returns? An Examination of Firm Operating Performance and Investors' Expectations

We investigate Gompers, Ishii, and Metrick's (2003) finding that firms with weak shareholder rights exhibit significant stock market underperformance. If the relation between poor governance and poor returns is causal, we expect that the market is negatively surprised by the poor operating performance of weak governance firms. We find that firms with weak shareholder rights exhibit significant operating underperformance. However, analysts' forecast errors and earnings announcement returns show no evidence that this underperformance surprises the market. Our results are robust to controls for takeover activity. Overall, our results do not support the hypothesis that weak governance causes poor stock returns.     

Reputation as a governance mechanism? Evidence from payout policy of insider‐controlled firms in Taiwan

This paper examines the effect of entrenched insiders’ reputational concerns on corporate payout policy in Taiwan, a market in which typical public firms are controlled by a single dominant shareholder who is subject to weak takeover threats and has incentives and abilities to extract private benefits by oppressing minority equity holders. The reputation‐building hypothesis predicts that firms with higher expropriation risk by a controlling shareholder make more payouts to credibly commit not to expropriate minority shareholders, thereby establishing reputation in the capital market for risk diversification and low‐cost external financing. I show that corporate payout intensity is significantly and positively correlated with measures related to the moral hazard of dominant owners. The reputation effect manifests in firms that most value it; the interaction analyses indicate that younger, smaller, or growth firms with higher controlling shareholder expropriation risk pay more cash dividends. Moreover, firms are less likely to omit dividends and more likely to resume dividends when their controlling shareholders are more entrenched. Finally, I show that the value of cash dividends is higher for firms with higher controlling shareholder expropriation risk and that expected dividend increases in these firms are value enhancing.     

Auditor liability and excess cash holdings: Evidence from audit fees of foreign incorporated firms

Auditors of foreign cross-listed firms face liability arising from the nature of the institutional monitoring framework of legal claims that can potentially be brought against the auditor in both the home country and the US. This paper is the first to document the relationship between auditor liability and auditor pricing of excess cash holdings for foreign firms cross-listed in the US. Our findings indicate that auditors demand a fee premium for foreign incorporated clients with greater excess cash holdings, consistent with auditors recognizing the potential for legal exposure to agency conflict arising from foreign listed US traded clients. Furthermore, we examine aspects of foreign capital market protections, such as disclosure requirements, the strength of legal enforcement, and the strength of shareholder rights to better understand auditor perception of the liability they incur due to the agency costs associated with excess cash holdings. We find that there is a significant positive association between audit fees and excess cash holdings for firms where the country of incorporation permits greater liability of auditors in criminal and civil litigation. In addition, auditors assign higher audit fees to firms holding greater excess cash incorporated in countries with greater required accounting disclosure, stronger legal enforcement and stronger shareholder rights.     

Takeovers,market monitoring,and international corporate governance

We theoretically and empirically examine the role of international takeover markets in curtailing dominant shareholder moral hazard for firms with higher value‐added from acquisitions. In equilibrium, such firms strategically list shares in the markets of their targets and voluntarily dilute dominant shareholder control through capital‐raising events to lower their expected acquisition costs. Empirical tests, using a sample of foreign firms cross‐listing on U.S. stock exchanges during 1990–2003, support the framework. We find a strong influence of post‐listing dilution of dominant shareholder control through capital‐raising events on the likelihood of acquisitions and their cost to the acquirers, in both U.S. and non‐U.S. markets.