In this paper, we study how risk-shifting incentives and the design of debt covenants are affected by the pattern of temporal resolution of uncertainty (TRU) in the underlying technology of the firm. We show that the extent of risk-shifting as well as the yield demanded on corporate debt are larger the later the resolution of uncertainty (thus providing one explanation for the empirical evidence of Reisz and Perlich (2006)). We allow for contracting based on verifiable information disclosed by the manager. In this context, we characterize optimal covenants restricting investment. The effects of these covenants on the firm's investment policy and corporate bond yields under different disclosure policies and patterns of TRU are studied. Empirical implications are derived and discussed.

We hypothesize that CEO compensation is optimally designed to trade off two types of agency problems: the standard shareholder-management agency problem as well as the risk-shifting problem between shareholders and debtholders. Analyses in this setup produces two predictions: (1) the pay-for-performance sensitivity of CEO compensation decreases with the leverage ratio; and (2) the pay-for-performance sensitivity of CEO compensation increases with the intensity of outside monitoring on the firm's risk choice. We test these two hypotheses for the banking industry where regulators and nondepository (subordinated) debtholders provide outside monitoring on the risk choice. We construct an index of the intensity of outside monitoring based on three variables: subordinated debt rating, non performing loan ratio and examination rating assigned by regulators. We find supporting evidence for both hypotheses.

We examine how state antitakeover laws affect bondholders and the cost of debt, and report four findings. First, bonds issued by firms incorporated in takeover-friendly states have significantly higher at-issue yield spreads than bonds issued by firms in states with restrictive antitakeover laws. Second, firms in takeover friendly states have significantly higher leverage than their counterparts in restrictive law states. Third, bond issues are associated with negative average stock price reactions among firms in takeover-friendly states, but positive stock price reactions among firms in restrictive law states. Fourth, existing bond values increase, on average, upon the introduction of Business Combination antitakeover law. These results indicate that state antitakeover laws tend to decrease bond yields and increase bond values, which is the opposite of their effect on equity values. This, in turn, implies that state laws help mitigate the agency cost of debt by shielding bondholders from expropriation in takeovers. Overall, the empirical evidence suggests that the effect of antitakeover provisions on firm value must take into account the impacts of both bondholders and stockholders.

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.