We test for fire-sale tendencies in automatic bankruptcy auctions. We find evidence consistent with fire-sale discounts when the auction leads to piecemeal liquidation, but not when the bankrupt firm is acquired as a going concern. Neither industry-wide distress nor the industry affiliation of the buyer affect prices in going-concern sales. Bids are often structured as leveraged buyouts, which relaxes liquidity constraints and reduces bidder underinvestment incentives in the presence of debt overhang. Prices in “prepack” auctions (sales agreements negotiated prior to bankruptcy filing) are on average lower than for in-auction going-concern sales, suggesting that prepacks may help preempt excessive liquidation when the auction is expected to be illiquid. Prepack targets have a greater industry-adjusted probability of refiling for bankruptcy, indicating that liquidation preemption is a risky strategy.

This paper provides some first, large-sample evidence on the Swedish auction bankruptcy system. Compared to U.S. Chapter 11 cases, the small-firm bankruptcy auctions examined here are substantially quicker, have lower costs, and avoid deviations from absolute priority. Three-quarters of the firms are auctioned as going concerns, which is similar to Chapter 11 survival rates. Moreover, based on market values, creditors in going-concern auctions recover a similar fraction of face value as creditors of much larger firms in Chapter 11 reorganizations. The evidence presented here suggests that the auction bankruptcy system is a surprisingly efficient restructuring mechanism for small firms.

Swedish bankruptcy filing automatically terminates the employment of the chief executive officer (CEO) and triggers an auction of the firm. Critics of this system warn of excessive shareholder risk-shifting incentives prior to filing. We argue that private benefits of control induce managerial conservatism that may override shareholder risk-shifting incentives. By investing conservatively, the CEO increases the joint probability that the auction results in a going-concern sale and that the CEO is rehired. This uniquely implies that the rehiring probability is increasing in private control benefits, which our empirical results support. We also find that buyers in the auction screen on CEO quality. Overall, labor market discipline is dramatic, as filing CEOs suffer large income losses relative to CEOs of matched, non-bankrupt firms. Firms emerging from auction bankruptcy appear healthy as they typically go on to perform at par with industry rivals. JEL classification: G33; G34

Abstract Corporate bonds include restrictive covenants that may prevent firms from pursuing valuable growth opportunities ex post and are virtually impossible to renegotiate. We study a common but little-known contractual provision—the defeasance option—which allows issuers to immediately remove all covenants without retiring the bond. Our theoretical model predicts, and our empirical analysis confirms, that defeasance inclusion is more likely when covenants are numerous and issuers face financial constraints, uncertainty, and growth opportunities. We also show that investors require lower yields when defeasance is included in noncallable bonds, and higher yields in fixed-price callable bonds, where it raises call risk.

We present unique empirical tests for auction overbidding using data from Sweden's auction bankruptcy system. The main creditor (a bank) can neither bid in the auction nor refuse to sell in order to support a minimum price. However, we argue that the bank may increase its expected revenue by financing a bidder in return for a joint bid strategy, and we show that the optimal coalition bid exceeds the bidder's private valuation (overbidding) by an amount that is increasing in the bank's ex ante debt impairment. We find that bank–bidder financing arrangements are common, and our cross-sectional regressions show that winning bids are increasing in the bank-debt impairment as predicted. While, in theory, overbidding may result in the coalition winning against a more efficient rival bidder, our evidence on post-bankruptcy operating performance fails to support such allocative inefficiency effects. We also find that restructurings by bank-financed bidders are relatively risky as they have greater bankruptcy refiling rates, irrespective of the coalition's overbidding incentive.

We present large sample evidence on the performance of domestic and U.S. (foreign) bid? der firms acquiring Canadian targets. Domestic bidders earn significantly positive average announcement period abnormal returns, while U.S. bidder returns are indistinguishable from zero. Measures of pre- and post-acquisition abnormal accounting performance are also consistent with a superior domestic bidder performance. Domestic bidder announce? ment returns are, on average, greatest for offers involving stock payment and for the bid? ders with the smallest equity size relative to the target. Neither direct foreign investment controls, horizontal product market relationships, nor acquisition propensities explain why domestic bidders outperform their U.S. competitors.

ABSTRACT Do preoffer target stock price runups increase bidder takeover costs? We present model‐based tests of this issue assuming runups are caused by signals that inform investors about potential takeover synergies. Rational deal anticipation implies a relation between target runups and markups (offer value minus runup) that is greater than minus one‐for‐one and inherently nonlinear. If merger negotiations force bidders to raise the offer with the runup—a costly feedback loop where bidders pay twice for anticipated target synergies—markups become strictly increasing in runups. Large‐sample tests support rational deal anticipation in runups while rejecting the costly feedback loop.