We model the reorganization decision of distressed firms. One of the novel features of our paper is that we examine the asset and liability side restructuring decisions jointly to resolve financial distress. Secondly, we model several institutional features of coping with financial distress such as debtor-in-possession financing, prepackaged bankruptcies, and asset sales. In our model, asset liquidity, indirect costs of financial distress, and the option value of equity are the determinants of the choice between Chapter 11 reorganizations and workouts. The model develops several testable predictions, some of which are novel and others of which are able to explain previously documented empirical results.

We examine a sample of 670 firms that announce asset purchases. We hypothesize that buyer announcement returns should be higher in the presence of better monitoring and better governance. Consistent with the monitoring hypothesis, we find that buyers with higher private debt make purchase decisions that increase shareholder value. Consistent with the governance hypothesis, we find that returns are higher for buyers that have lower antitakeover provisions in place. Consistent with the managerial discretion hypothesis, buyer announcement-period returns increase with buyer leverage. Consistent with the liquidity hypothesis, we find that announcement-period returns decrease with the seller's Z-score, suggesting that buyers benefit from the lower liquidity of assets sold by sellers with lower debt capacity and higher financial distress. We also find that buyer announcement-period returns are directly related to their operating performance in the post-purchase year.

We find that PIPE issues that do not provide any protections to investors convey positive information about the firm and result in positive announcement period returns. However, PIPE issues that provide protections do not convey any new information about the firm and hence do not result in significant positive or negative announcement period returns. PIPE issuers that offer no protections to investors outperform their matched portfolios for up to 9 months after the issue. PIPE issuers that offer protections underperform their matched portfolios for 18 to 36 months after the issue.

We examine the announcement-period acquirer returns and target values for a large sample of cross-border acquisitions by U.S. firms, differentiating between private and public targets and paying particular attention to the legal protection of minority shareholders in the target country. For high-protection target countries, acquirer announcement-period returns are significantly negative for public targets and significantly positive for private targets. For low-protection target countries, the acquirer returns are significantly positive for public targets and insignificantly different from zero for private targets. For public targets, acquirer returns are decreasing and target-firm values and acquisition premia are increasing with the level of investor protection. For private targets, investor protection does not affect acquirer returns or target-firm values. We find that bidder returns decrease with the level of creditor protection in the target country and increase with the quality of accounting standards. Our results also show that in low- protection countries, firm-level corporate governance mechanisms, such as higher insider ownership, may substitute for the lower level of investor protection.