Abstract
In 1990, Pennsylvania enacted Senate Bill 1310, containing five provisions designed to make takeovers prohibitively expensive but allowing firms to opt out of some or all of the law's provisions. We find that firms that opted out of SB 1310 had lower insider control of voting rights and were less likely to have a poison pill in place prior to the law's enactment, even after controlling for firm size and the monitoring activities of blockholders and outside directors. In addition, we find that opt-out firms spent less on R&D than non-opt-out firms. Our result suggest that some boards value takeover defense (whether firm or state-level) whereas others prefer to be subject to an active market for corporate control.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
