To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results

Renegotiation of cash flow rights in the sale of VC-backed firms

Journal of Financial Economics 2010 95(3), 384-399
Incomplete contracting theory suggests that venture capitalist (VC) cash flow rights, including liquidation preferences, could be subject to renegotiation. Using a hand-collected data set of sales of Silicon Valley firms, we find common shareholders do sometimes receive payment before VCs’ liquidation preferences are satisfied. However, such deviations from VCs' cash flow rights tend to be small. We also find that renegotiation is more likely when governance arrangements, including the firm's choice of corporate law, give common shareholders more power to impede the sale. Our study provides support for incomplete contracting theory, improves understanding of VC exits, and suggests that choice of corporate law matters in private firms.

Do VCs use inside rounds to dilute founders? Some evidence from Silicon Valley

Journal of Corporate Finance 2012 18(5), 1104-1120
In the bank-borrower setting, a firm's existing lender may exploit its positional advantage to extract rents from the firm in subsequent financings. Analogously, a startup's existing venture capital investors (VCs) may dilute the founder through a follow-on financing from these same VCs (an “inside” round) at an artificially low valuation. Using a hand-collected dataset of Silicon Valley startup firms, we find little evidence that VCs use inside rounds to dilute founders. Instead, our findings suggest that inside rounds are generally used as “backstop financing” for startups that cannot attract new money, and these rounds are conducted at relatively high valuations (perhaps to reduce litigation risk).

Shareholder approval thresholds in acquisitions: Evidence from tender offers

Journal of Corporate Finance 2018 53, 225-245
We exploit a 2013 Delaware law that reduces the shareholder support threshold for two-step tender offers to investigate the impact of differing levels of shareholder support on deal structures and outcomes. After the legal change, Delaware acquisitions, as opposed to other states, are more likely to be completed via tender offer, and Delaware targets collectively receive greater acquisition premiums and returns relative to firms incorporated in other states. Our results caution that supermajority shareholder approval thresholds can increase the risk of shareholder holdup and have little (if any) effect on managerial self-dealing.