| Abstract: | We examine whether go‐shop provisions in merger agreements are used to benefit target shareholders or for agency/entrenchment reasons. We find that go‐shop provisions are more likely in deals involving the negotiation selling method, financial buyers and all cash financing, and in targets with less valuation uncertainty. We confirm that go‐shops have a positive association with the initial offer premium. Results suggest that deals with go‐shop provisions are more likely to have a competing bid and an upward revision of the initial offer premium. Collectively, our results indicate that go‐shops are effective contractual devices used to further target shareholder interests. |
