What Are the Firm Value Implications of SEC-Challenged Shareholder Proposals?

References

• Agrawal AK (2011) Corporate governance objectives of labor union shareholders: Evidence from proxy voting. Rev. Financial Stud. 25(1):187–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bach L, Metzger D (2017) How do shareholder proposals create value? Working paper, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.Google Scholar
• Bach L, Metzger D (2019) How close are close shareholder votes? Rev. Financial Stud. 32(8):3183–3214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bainbridge SM (2003) A comment on the SEC shareholder access proposal. Working paper, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
• Bainbridge SM (2006) Director primacy and shareholder disempowerment. Harvard Law Rev. 119:1735–1758.Google Scholar
• Bas MA, Signorino CS, Walker RW (2008) Statistical backward induction: [A] simple method for estimating recursive strategic models. Political Anal. 16(1):21–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bauer R, Moers F, Viehs M (2015) Who withdraws shareholder proposals and does it matter? An analysis of sponsor identity and pay practices. Corporate Governance 23(6):472–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA (2003) The case for shareholder access to the ballot. Bus. Lawyer 59(1):43–66.Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA (2004) The case for increasing shareholder power. Harvard Law Rev. 118:833.Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Brav A, Jiang W, Keusch T (2020) Dancing with activists. J. Financial Econom. 137(1):1–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becht M, Polo A, Rossi S (2016) Does mandatory shareholder voting prevent bad acquisitions? Rev. Financial Stud. 29(11):3035–3067.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becht M, Franks J, Mayer C, Rossi S (2010) Returns to shareholder activism: Evidence from a clinical study of the Hermes UK Focus Fund. Rev. Financial Stud. 23(3):3093–3129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2003) Enjoying the quiet life? Corporate governance and managerial preferences. J. Political Econom. 111(5):1043–1075.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bizjak JM, Marquette CJ (1998) Are shareholder proposals all bark and no bite? Evidence from shareholder resolutions to rescind poison pills. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 33(4):499–521.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bratton WW, Wachter ML (2010) The case against shareholder empowerment. University Pennsylvania Law Rev. 158(3):653–728.Google Scholar
• Brochet F, Ferri F, Miller GS (2021) Investors’ perceptions of activism via voting: Evidence from contentious shareholder meetings. Contemporary Accounting Res. 38(4):2758–2794.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Calonico S, Cattaneo MD, Titiunik R (2014) Robust nonparametric confidence intervals for regression-discontinuity designs. Econometrica 82(6):2295–2326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Calonico S, Cattaneo MD, Farrell MH, Titiunik R (2019) Regression discontinuity designs using covariates. Rev. Econom. Statist. 101(3):442–451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carleton WT, Nelson JM, Weisbach MS (1998) The influence of institutions on corporate governance through private negotiations: Evidence from TIAA-CREF. J. Finance 53(4):1335–1362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chidambaran N, Woidtke T (1999) The role of negotiations in corporate governance: Evidence from withdrawn shareholder-initiated proposals. Working paper, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
• Coffee JC Jr (1993) The SEC and the institutional investor: A half-time report. Cardozo Law Rev. 15:837–907.Google Scholar
• Correia MM (2014) Political connections and SEC enforcement. J. Accounting Econom. 57(2–3):241–262.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cuñat V, Gine M, Guadalupe M (2012) The vote is cast: The effect of corporate governance on shareholder value. J. Finance 67(5):1943–1977.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dechow PM, Sloan RG, Sweeney AP (1996) Causes and consequences of earnings manipulation: An analysis of firms subject to enforcement actions by the SEC. Contemporary Accounting Res. 13(1):1–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Del Guercio D, Woidtke T (2019) Can strong corporate governance selectively mitigate the negative influence of “special interest” shareholder activists? Evidence from the labor market for directors. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 54(4):1573–1614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Oesch D (2015) Does the director election system matter? Evidence from majority voting. Rev. Accounting Stud. 20(1):1–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Oesch D (2017) Understanding uncontested director elections. Management Sci. 64(7):3400–3420.Link, Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Stubben SR (2010) Board of directors’ responsiveness to shareholders: Evidence from shareholder proposals. J. Corporate Finance 16(1):53–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Factset, Market Insight (2016) 2016 shareholder activism review. Accessed October 10, 2017, https://insight.factset.com/hubfs/Resources/Research%20Desk/Market%20Insight/FactSet%27s%202016%20Year-End%20Activism%20Review_2.1.17.pdf.Google Scholar
• Feroz EH, Park K, Pastena VS (1991) The financial and market effects of the SEC’s accounting and auditing enforcement releases. J. Accounting Res. 29:107–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferri F (2012) ‘Low-cost’ shareholder activism: A review of the evidence. Hill CA, McDonnell BH, eds. Research Handbook on the Economics of Corporate Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK), 192–215.Google Scholar
• Fisch JE (1993) From legitimacy to logic: Reconstructing proxy regulation. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 46:1129–1993.Google Scholar
• Flammer C (2015) Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Sci. 61(11):2549–2568.Link, Google Scholar
• Gantchev N (2013) The costs of shareholder activism: Evidence from a sequential decision model. J. Financial Econom. 107(3):610–631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gantchev N, Giannetti M (2021) The costs and benefits of shareholder democracy: Gadflies and low-cost activism. Rev. Financial Stud. 34(12):5629–5675.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gillan SL, Starks LT (2000) Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: The role of institutional investors. J. Financial Econom. 57(2):275–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gompers P, Ishii J, Metrick A (2003) Corporate governance and equity prices. Quart. J. Econom. 118(1):107–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hart O, Zingales L (2017) Companies should maximize shareholder welfare not market value. J. Law Finance Accounting 2(2):247–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong H, Kacperczyk M (2009) The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets. J. Financial Econom. 93(1):15–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iliev P, Lowry M (2014) Are mutual funds active voters? Rev. Financial Stud. 28(2):446–485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen MC (1986) Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(2):323–329.Google Scholar
• Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. 3(4):305–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karpoff JM, Lee DS, Martin GS (2008a) The consequences to managers for financial misrepresentation. J. Financial Econom. 88(2):193–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karpoff JM, Lee DS, Martin GS (2008b) The cost to firms of cooking the books. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 43(3):581–611.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kedia S, Rajgopal S (2011) Do the SEC’s enforcement preferences affect corporate misconduct? J. Accounting Econom. 51(3):259–278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larcker DF, McCall AL, Ormazabal G (2013) Proxy advisory firms and stock option repricing. J. Accounting Econom. 56(2–3):149–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larcker DF, McCall AL, Ormazabal G (2015) Outsourcing shareholder voting to proxy advisory firms. J. Law Econom. 58(1):173–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazaroff DE (1997) Promoting corporate democracy and social responsibility: The need to reform the federal proxy rules on shareholder proposals. Rutgers Law Rev. 50:33–96.Google Scholar
• Levit D, Malenko N (2011) Nonbinding voting for shareholder proposals. J. Finance 66(5):1579–1614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li T (2016) Outsourcing corporate governance: Conflicts of interest within the proxy advisory industry. Management Sci. 64(6):2951–2971.Link, Google Scholar
• Listokin Y (2009) Corporate voting vs. market price setting. Amer. Law Econom. Rev. 11(2):608–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malenko N, Shen Y (2016) The role of proxy advisory firms: Evidence from a regression-discontinuity design. Rev. Financial Stud. 29(12):3394–3427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matsusaka JG, Ozbas O, Yi I (2019) Opportunistic proposals by union shareholders. Rev. Financial Stud. 32(8):3215–3265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matsusaka JG, Ozbas O, Yi I (2021) Can shareholder proposals hurt shareholders? Evidence from securities and exchange commission no-action-letter decisions. J. Law Econom. 64(1):107–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCahery JA, Sautner Z, Starks LT (2016) Behind the scenes: The corporate governance preferences of institutional investors. J. Finance 71(6):2905–2932.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCrary J (2008) Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test. J. Econometrics 142(2):698–714.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Brien SP (1984) The 1983 amendments to SEC Rule 14a-8: Upsetting a precarious balance. Valparaiso University Law Rev. 19:221–286.Google Scholar
• Ott C, Schiemann F, Günther T (2017) Disentangling the determinants of the response and the publication decisions: The case of the carbon disclosure project. J. Accounting Public Policy 36(1):14–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Palmiter AR (1993) The shareholder proposal rule: A failed experiment in merit regulation. Alabama Law Rev. 45:879–926.Google Scholar
• Pound J (1991) Proxy voting and the SEC: Investor protection vs. market efficiency. J. Financial Econom. 29(2):241–285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prevost AK, Rao RP (2000) Of what value are shareholder proposals sponsored by public pension funds? J. Bus. 73(2):177–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reali P (2022) Coming to terms with a maturing ESG landscape. The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. Accessed March 20, 2022, https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/17/coming-to-terms-with-a-maturing-esg-landscape/.Google Scholar
• Renneboog L, Szilagyi PG (2011) The role of shareholder proposals in corporate governance. J. Corporate Finance 17(1):167–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Renneboog L, Ter Horst J, Zhang C (2008) Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behavior. J. Bank. Finance 32(9):1723–1742.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwartz DE, Weiss EJ (1976) An assessment of the SEC shareholder proposal rule. Georgetown Law J. 65:635–690.Google Scholar
• SEC/Division of Corporation Finance (2001) Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14 (CF). Accessed July 25, 2019, https://www.sec.gov/pdf/cfslb14.pdf.Google Scholar
• SEC/Division of Corporation Finance (2008) No-action letter, May 23, 2008, Electronic Arts Inc. Accessed November 30, 2016, https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/14a-8/2008/electronicartsinc052308-14a8.pdf.Google Scholar
• SEC/Division of Corporation Finance (2012) No-action letter, December 18, 2012, International Business Machines Corporation. Accessed November 30, 2016, https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/14a-8/2012/nycemployee121812-14a8.pdf.Google Scholar
• SEC/Division of Corporation Finance (2013) No-action letter, March 13, 2013, The Western Union Company. Accessed November 30, 2016, https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/14a-8/2013/norgesbank031313-14a8.pdf.Google Scholar
• SEC/Division of Corporation Finance (2016) No-action letter: March 22, 2016, SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. Accessed November 30, 2016, https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/14a-8/2016/peta032216-14a8.pdf.Google Scholar
• Simnett R, Vanstraelen A, Chua WF (2009) Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. Accounting Rev. 84(3):937–967.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith MP (1996) Shareholder activism by institutional investors: Evidence from CalPERS. J. Finance 51(1):227–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soltes EF, Srinivasan S, Vijayaraghavan R (2017) What else do shareholders want? Shareholder proposals contested by firm management. Working paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Stanton PR (1999) SEC reverses Cracker Barrel no-action letter. Washington University Law Rev. 77(3):979–992.Google Scholar
• Thomas RS, Cotter JF (2007) Shareholder proposals in the new millennium: Shareholder support, board response, and market reaction. J. Corporate Finance 13(2):368–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uhlenbrock PR (2000) Roll out the barrel: The SEC reverses its stance on employment-related shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8–Again. Delaware J. Corporate Law 25:277–308.Google Scholar
• Van Ophem H, Schram A (1997) Sequential and multinomial logit: A nested model. Empirical Econom. 22(1):131–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waite KW (1995) The ordinary business operations exception to the shareholder proposal rule: A return to predictability. Fordham Law Rev. 64:1253–1277.Google Scholar
• Welter EA (1991) Shareholder proposal rule: A change to certainty. George Washington Law Rev. 60:1980–2016.Google Scholar