Target shareholders have the right to ask for a higher merger price if good news emerges after a merger agreement. This “appraisal right” varies with state law and was substantially strengthened in Delaware in 2007. I examine how target managers respond to changes in this right. If target managers represent target shareholders, the managers would be more likely to release good news, but I find they are more likely to withhold good news when appraisal rights are higher. This suggests agency problems and collusion on the part of target managers, and thus my paper adds to the larger literature that considers agency problems on the part of managers.

We examine whether and how firms structure their merger and acquisition deals to avoid antitrust scrutiny. There are approximately 40% more mergers and acquisitions (M&As) than expected just below deal value thresholds that trigger antitrust review. These “stealth acquisitions” tend to involve financial and governance contract terms that afford greater scope for negotiating and assigning lower deal values. We also show that the equity values, gross margins, and product prices of acquiring firms and their competitors increase following such acquisitions. Our results suggest that acquirers manipulate M&As to avoid antitrust scrutiny, thereby benefiting their own shareholders but potentially harming other corporate stakeholders.