This paper examines possible motives for and consequences of voluntary corporate liquidations. Specifically, the procedural and tax differences between voluntary liquidations and other control-changing transaction devices are analyzed. An empirical investigation of successful liquidations shows that the announcement of liquidation reduces the risk of liquidating shares, that the shareholders receive substantial gains from successful liquidations, and that the average gains to the acquiring shareholders are not significantly different from zero. These findings suggest that the liquidating firms' assets have been underutilized before liquidation and that voluntary liquidations lead to higher-valued reallocations of corporate resources.

Data on corporate governance and disclosure practices reveal wide within‐country variation that decreases with the strength of investors' legal protection. A simple model identifies three firm attributes related to that variation: investment opportunities, external financing, and ownership structure. Using firm‐level governance and transparency data from 27 countries, we find that all three firm attributes are related to the quality of governance and disclosure practices, and firms with higher governance and transparency rankings are valued higher in stock markets. All relations are stronger in less investor‐friendly countries, demonstrating that firms adapt to poor legal environments to establish efficient governance practices.

We find weak governance is a primary reason investors react negatively to the announcement of seasoned equity offerings (SEOs). Using a difference-in-differences approach, we find investors worry about nonproductive use of SEO proceeds when external pressure for good governance lifts due to an external shock. Investors react negatively only when treated firms raise funds to increase capital investments. Market reaction is more negative when issuers have prior records of value-reducing acquisitions and weaker managerial wealth sensitivity to shareholder value. The magnitudes of these governance effects are surprisingly large, explaining most of the previously documented negative market reactions to primary SEOs.

We investigate stock market rationality by examining the timeliness and unbiasedness of the market's response to dividend announcements. Our initial findings for market timeliness show a sluggish market reaction to dividend announcements; however, when the ex-dividend effect is controlled for, we find no evidence of a sluggish market reaction. We examine the unbiasedness of the market's response by testing whether the net announcement effect across a sample that is devoid of ex-post selection bias sums to zero. We observe a significant positive net announcement effect and examine several plausible conjectures for this puzzling phenomenon, but none provides a satisfactory explanation.

Using exogenous shocks on the ability to issue seasoned equity offerings (SEOs), we show SEOs lead to a higher employee skill composition, that is, a lower (higher) proportion of low (high) skilled workers. The decrease in low-skilled workers exceeds the increase in high-skilled workers, resulting in reduced employment at the firm level. These effects are more significant when firms invest more in technology following SEOs and face greater financial constraints before SEOs, suggesting that SEOs relieve budget constraints on technology investments. These findings demonstrate that while external equity financing helps upgrade technology to improve productivity, it has a dark side for low-skilled workers.

This paper investigates the rationale behind interfirm tender offers by examining the returns realized by the stockholders of firms that were the targets of unsuccessful tender offers and firms that have made unsuccessful offers. Our results suggest that the permanent positive revaluation of the unsuccessful target shares [documented by Dodd and Ruback (1977) and Bradley (1980)] is due primarily to the emergence of and/or the anticipation of another bid that would ultimately result in the transfer of control of the target resources. We also find that the rejection of a tender offer has differential effects on the share prices of the unsuccessful bidding firms depending upon whether the tender offer process results in a change in the control of target resources. On the basis of these results we conclude that acquisitions via tender offers are attempts by bidding firms to exploit potential synergies, not simply superior information regarding the ‘true’ value of the target resources.