The Consequences to Directors for Deploying Poison Pills

References

• Abadie A, Athey S, Imbens GW, Wooldridge JM (2023) When should you adjust your standard errors for clustering? Quart. J. Econom. 138(1):1–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aggarwal R, Dahiya S, Prabhala NR (2019) The power of shareholder votes: Evidence from uncontested director elections. J. Financial Econom. 133(1):134–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alchian A, Demsetz H (1972) Production, information costs, and economic organization. Amer. Econom. Rev. 62(5):777–795.Google Scholar
• Amihud Y, Schmid M, Solomon SD (2019) Settling the staggered board debate. Univ. Pennsylvania Law Rev. 166(6):1475–1510.Google Scholar
• Armour J, Black B, Cheffins B, Nolan R (2009) Private enforcement of corporate law: An empirical comparison of the United Kingdom and the United States. J. Empirical Legal Stud. 6(4):687–722.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bates TW, Becher DA, Lemmon ML (2008) Board classification and managerial entrenchment: Evidence from the market for corporate control. J. Financial Econom. 87(3):656–677.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Brav A, Jiang W (2015) The long-term effects of hedge fund activism. Columbia Law Rev. 115(5):1085–1156.Google Scholar
• Bhattarai D, Serfling M, Woidtke T (2022) Do individual directors matter? Evidence of director-specific quality. Working paper, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.Google Scholar
• Black B, Cheffins B, Klausner M (2006) Outside director liability: A policy analysis. J. Institutional Theoret. Econom. 162(1):5–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brav A, Jiang W, Partnoy F, Thomas R (2008) Hedge fund activism, corporate governance, and firm performance. J. Finance 63(4):1729–1775.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brochet F, Srinivasan S (2014) Accountability of independent directors—Evidence from firms subject to securities litigation. J. Financial Econom. 111(2):430–449.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt A, Hrdlicka C, Harford J (2020) How much do directors influence firm value? Rev. Financial Stud. 33(3):1818–1847.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cai J, Garner JL, Walkling RA (2009) Electing directors. J. Finance 64(5):2389–2421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Catan E (2019) The insignificance of clear-day poison pills. J. Legal Stud. 48(1):1–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Catan E, Kahan M (2016) The law and finance of anti-takeover statutes. Stanford Law Rev. 68(3):629–682.Google Scholar
• Cen L, Dasgupta S, Sen R (2016) Discipline or disruption? Stakeholder relationships and the effect of takeover threat. Management Sci. 62(10):2765–3084.Google Scholar
• Coates J (2000) Takeover defenses in the shadow of the pill: A critique of the scientific evidence. Texas Law Rev. 79(2):271–282.Google Scholar
• Coles JL, Hoi C-K (2003) New evidence on the market for directors: Board membership and Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1310. J. Finance 58(1):197–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Comment R, Schwert GW (1995) Poison or placebo? Evidence on the deterrence and wealth effects of modern antitakeover measures. J. Financial Econom. 39(1):3–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cremers KJM, Masconale S, Sepe SM (2016) Commitment and entrenchment in corporate governance. Northwestern Law Rev. 110(4):727–810.Google Scholar
• Cremers KJM, Litov L, Sepe S, Zator M (2024) Poison pills in the shadow of the law. ECGI Finance Working Paper No. 595/2019, European Corporate Governance Institute, Brussels.Google Scholar
• Danielson MG, Karpoff JM (2006) Do pills poison operating performance? J. Corporate Finance 12(3):536–559.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Datta S, Iskandar-Datta M (1996) Takeover defenses and wealth effects on securityholders: The case of poison pill adoptions. J. Banking Finance 20(7):1231–1250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeAngelo H, Rice EM (1983) Antitakeover charter amendments and stockholder wealth. J. Financial Econom. 11(1–4):329–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Del Guercio D, Seery L, Woidtke T (2008) Do boards pay attention when institutional investor activists ‘just vote no’? J. Financial Econom. 90(1):84–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dimensional Fund Advisors (2020) Annual stewardship report. Accessed July 16, 2021, https://us.dimensional.com/about-us/investment-stewardship.Google Scholar
• Ding W, Chen L, Schmid T, Weisbach MS (2023) Directors’ incentives from potential regulatory penalties: Evidence from their voting. ECGI Working Paper No. 809/2021, European Corporate Governance Institute, Brussels.Google Scholar
• Eldar O, Wittry MD (2021) Crisis poison pills. Rev. Corporate Finance Stud. 10(1):1699–1746.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eldar O, Kirmse T, Wittry MD (2023) The rise of anti-activist poison pills. ECGI Finance Working Paper No. 869/2023, European Corporate Governance Institute, Brussels.Google Scholar
• Engelberg J, Gao P, Parsons CA (2013) The price of a CEO’s rolodex. Rev. Financial Stud. 26(1):79–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Maber DA (2012) Reputation penalties for poor monitoring of executive pay: Evidence from option backdating. J. Financial Econom. 104(1):118–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Oesch D (2018) Understanding uncontested director elections. Management Sci. 64(7):3400–3420.Link, Google Scholar
• Fama EF (1980) Agency problems and the theory of the firm. J. Political Econom. 88(2):288–307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF, Jensen M (1983) Agency problems and residual claims. J. Law Econom. 26(2):327–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fich EM, Shivdasani A (2007) Financial fraud, director reputation, and shareholder wealth. J. Financial Econom. 86(2):306–336.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Field LC, Lowry M (2022) Bucking the trend: Why do IPOs choose controversial governance structures and why do investors let them? J. Financial Econom. 146(1):27–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fos V, Tsoutsoura M (2014) Shareholder democracy in play: Career consequences of proxy contests. J. Financial Econom. 114(1):316–340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fracassi C, Tate G (2012) External networking and internal firm governance. J. Finance 67(1):153–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilson SC (1990) Bankruptcy, boards, banks and blockholders: Evidence on changes on corporate ownership and control when firms default. J. Financial Econom. 27(2):355–387.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gopalan R, Gormley T, Kalda A (2021) It’s not so bad: Director bankruptcy experience and corporate risk taking. J. Financial Econom. 142(1):261–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grossman SJ, Hart OD (1980) Takeover bids, the free-rider problem, and the theory of the corporation. Bell J. Econom. 11(1):42–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guernsey S, Guo F, Liu T, Serfling M (2025) Thirty years of change: The evolution of classified boards. J. Finance 80(5):2971–3020.Google Scholar
• Harford J (2003) Takeover bids and target directors’ incentives: Retention, experience, and settling-up. J. Financial Econom. 69(1):51–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heron RA, Lie E (2006) On the use of poison pills and defensive payouts by takeover targets. J. Bus. 79(1):1783–1807.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heron RA, Lie E (2015) The effect of poison pill adoptions and court rulings on firm entrenchment. J. Corporate Finance 35(1):286–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iliev P, Lins KV, Miller DP, Roth L (2015) Shareholder voting and corporate governance around the world. Rev. Financial Stud. 28(8):2167–2202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Institutional Shareholder Services (2022) Proxy voting guidelines benchmark policy changes for 2023: U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Americas regional. Accessed October 17, 2023, https://www.issgovernance.com/file/policy/latest/updates/Americas-Policy-Updates.pdf.Google Scholar
• Jenter D, Matveyev E, Roth L (2018) Good and bad CEOs. Working paper, London School of Economics, London.Google Scholar
• Jiang W, Wan H, Zhao S (2016) Reputation concerns of independent directors: Evidence from individual director voting. Rev. Financial Stud. 29(3):655–696.Google Scholar
• Johnson WC, Karpoff JM, Yi S (2015) The bonding hypothesis of takeover defenses: Evidence from IPO firms. J. Financial Econom. 117(2):307–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson WC, Karpoff JM, Yi S (2022) The life cycle effects of corporate takeover defenses. Rev. Financial Stud. 35(6):2879–2927.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan SN, Reishus D (1990) Outside directorships and corporate performance. J. Financial Econom. 27(2):389–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kirmse T (2023) Silent activism. Working paper, Drexel University, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Klausner M (2013) Fact and fiction in corporate law and governance. Stanford Law Rev. 65(6):1325–1370.Google Scholar
• Levit D, Malenko N (2016) The labor market for directors and externalities in corporate governance. J. Finance 71(2):775–808.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ma J, Khanna T (2016) Independent directors’ dissent on boards: Evidence from listed companies in China. Strategic Management J. 37(8):1547–1557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malatesta PH, Walkling RA (1988) Poison pill securities: Stockholder wealth, profitability, and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. 20:347–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malenko N (2014) Communication and decision-making in corporate boards. Rev. Financial Stud. 27(5):1486–1532.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
• Margotta DG, McWilliams TP, McWilliams VB (1990) An analysis of the stock price effect of the 1986 Ohio takeover legislation. J. Law Econom. Organ. 6(1):235–251.Google Scholar
• Marshall CD (2010) Are dissenting directors rewarded? Working paper, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA.Google Scholar
• Masulis R, Mobbs S (2014) Independent director incentives: Where do talented directors spend their limited time and energy. J. Financial Econom. 111(2):406–429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Naaraayanan L, Nielsen K (2021) Does personal liability deter individuals from serving as independent directors? J. Financial Econom. 140(2):621–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nguyen BD, Nielsen KM (2010) The value of independent directors: Evidence from sudden deaths. J. Finance Econom. 98(3):550–567.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oster E (2019) Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 37(2):187–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryngaert M (1988) The effect of poison pill securities on shareholder wealth. J. Financial Econom. 20:377–417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryngaert M, Netter JM (1988) Shareholder wealth effects of the Ohio antitakeover law. J. Law Econom. Organ. 4(2):373–383.Google Scholar
• Ryngaert M, Netter JM (1990) Shareholder wealth effects of the Ohio antitakeover law revisited: Its real effects. J. Law Econom. Organ. 6(1):253–262.Google Scholar
• Schmid T, Urban D (2023) Female directors and firm value: New evidence from director deaths. Management Sci. 69(4):1935–2545.Google Scholar
• Schwartz-Ziv M, Weisbach MS (2013) What do boards really do? Evidence from minutes of board meetings. J. Financial Econom. 108(2):349–366.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srinivasan S (2005) Consequences of financial reporting failure for outside directors: Evidence from accounting restatements and audit committee members. J. Accounting Res. 43(2):291–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tang X, Du J, Hou Q (2013) The effectiveness of the mandatory disclosure of independent directors’ opinions: Empirical evidence from China. J. Accounting Public Policy 32(3):89–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Warther VA (1998) Board effectiveness and board dissent: A model of the board’s relationship to management and shareholders. J. Corporate Finance 4(1):53–70. Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yermack D (2004) Remuneration, retention, and reputation incentives for outside directors. J. Finance 59(5):2281–2308.Crossref, Google Scholar