We examine the impact of financial distress conditions at the individual firm level, the operating industry level, and economy-wide, on the stock price reaction to divestment announcements. This allows us to isolate distinct fire sale and financing theoretical explanations of asset divestments. We find that abnormal returns are significantly lower when firms divest assets during periods of industry-wide distress. During these periods the natural buyers of the divested assets are likely to have liquidity constraints, and so selling firms receive a lower price (Shleifer and Vishny, 1992). Fire sale effects from divestments are driven by financially constrained firms, firms selling core assets, small firms, and increase with deal size. We find some support for the financing explanation of the stock price response to divestments during periods of overlapping firm-level and economy-wide financial distress conditions, suggesting that divesting assets reduce the expected value of bankruptcy costs for selling firms under these conditions.

Patent attorneys are responsible for obtaining patents that bring the highest expected profits for their corporate clients. We investigate the role of patent attorney capability in determining the value of corporate patents. We find that a one standard deviation increase in legal expertise leads to a 0.04% rise in patents' market valuation and a 3% increase in citations. This finding holds irrespective of the number of patents obtained by patent attorneys to date (process experience). To establish causality, we exploit a novel shock: the opening of new regional patent offices in the US; and changes in a firm's patent attorney. Overall, we find that capable patent attorneys matter as they increase both the economic and technological value of corporate patents.

We examine whether outside investors mimic insider trades by analyzing the daily transactions of foreign institutional investors (FII) in the Indian emerging market. We find that the value relevance of insiders' opportunistic buy trades is much higher in our context relative to that reported for developed markets. More importantly, we find that FII mimic opportunistic buy trades, which is more pronounced for firms that are informationally more opaque or have lower corporate governance quality. A long-short strategy based on FII's transactions after opportunistic trades generates an additional abnormal return of approximately 29% annually, compared to transactions based on routines trades.

Existing studies suggest that stricter Corporate Governance Reform (CGR) reduces corporate risk-taking, primarily due to higher compliance costs and expanded liabilities of insiders or managers. We revisit the relationship between CGR and risk-taking in an emerging market set-up characterized by weaker market forces of corporate scrutiny and greater insider ownership, which encourages firms to pursue investment conservatism. Using a quasi-natural experiment, we find that stricter CGR leads to greater corporate risk-taking. We further show that risk-taking is an important channel through which CGR enhances firm value. Our findings support the view that stricter CGR can have a positive effect on corporate risk-taking and corporate investment decisions in an evolving regulatory environment.

This study examines whether the heterogeneity among foreign institutional investors (FIIs) matters when investing in socially responsible investee firms. Exploiting a mandated corporate social responsibility (CSR) regulation in India and using manually collected CSR expenditure data, the results of a quasi-natural experiment confirm that firms that comply with the CSR mandate attract greater investment from FIIs. This positive nexus holds for both existing and new FIIs. However, the heterogeneity of FIIs plays a significant moderating role because FIIs from civil law origin countries and those considered independent and long-term investors invest more in mandated CSR firms.