In this paper, we examine the motivations of acquirers undertaking partial acquisitions in emerging markets by testing two competing hypotheses: the market for corporate control hypothesis and the market entry hypothesis. We find that targets of cross-border acquisitions outperform targets of domestic acquisitions in the pre-acquisition period. While cross-border acquisitions have no significant impact on target firms' operating performance, targets of domestic acquisitions experience significant improvements in operating performance and substantial changes in ownership structure after the acquisition. The evidence suggests that domestic partial acquisitions in emerging markets serve as a market for corporate control, while cross-border partial acquisitions are motivated by the strategic market entry rationale.

This paper demonstrates that firms receiving above-industry-average support in their “say-on-pay” (SoP) votes engage in more M&A transactions in the subsequent year. Our empirical findings suggest that high levels of SoP voting support may boost managerial confidence, thereby stimulating increased pursuit of acquisitions. Moreover, we observe that managers garnering higher SoP vote support are more likely to secure shareholders' backing in M&A votes, receive higher compensation in successful deals, and face a reduced likelihood of forced turnover following unsuccessful deals. Additionally, we find that both short-term and long-term M&A performance significantly improves in deals announced by managers receiving higher SoP voting support. These findings contribute to our understanding of the relation between shareholder support for CEOs and firm investment.