This study investigates the relation between the method of payment in acquisitions, earnings management, and operating performance for a large sample of firms that conducted acquisitions between 1985 and 1997. Prior to their acquisitions, acquirers exhibit levels of operating performance that exceed that of their respective industry peers. We find no evidence that acquirers manage their earnings prior to acquisitions, despite the possible incentives of managers who plan stock-based acquisitions to temporarily inflate their stock's purchasing power. Subsequent to acquisitions, acquirers continue to exhibit superior performance relative to their industry and experience significantly higher levels of operating performance than control firms with similar pre-event operating performance. Although the extant literature documents significant relations between the form of acquisition payment, announcement returns, and the post-acquisition excess return of acquirers, we find no evidence that the method of payment conveys information about the acquirer's future operating performance.

We challenge a common presumption that poison pills and two Delaware case rulings in 1995 validating such pills materially entrench firms. Based on unsolicited takeover attempts from 1985 to 2009, we find that poison pills enhance takeover premiums, but do not reduce completion rates. Furthermore, the 1995 Delaware rulings affected neither the use of poison pills among the targets, the effectiveness of the pills that were used, the completion rate of the takeover attempts, nor the takeover premiums.

Extant studies show that stock returns are abnormally negative before executive option grants and abnormally positive afterward. We find that this return pattern is much weaker since August 29, 2002, when the Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that option grants must be reported within two business days took effect. Furthermore, in those cases in which grants are reported within one day of the grant date, the pattern has completely vanished, but it continues to exist for grants reported with longer lags, and its magnitude tends to increase with the reporting delay. We interpret these findings as evidence that most of the abnormal return pattern around option grants is attributable to backdating of option grant dates.

The literature suggests two competing explanations for reincorporations: efforts at managerial entrenchment and attempts to improve contractual efficiency. The empirical evidence to date is inconclusive. To seek further evidence, we examine a large sample of firms that changed their state of incorporation over the period 1980–1992. We find that shareholder wealth is decreased by reincorporations that erect takeover defenses, but is increased by reincorporations that establish limits on director liability. Firms that claim they reincorporate to limit the personal liability of their board members and thereby attract better qualified outside directors do, in fact, expand the outside representation on their boards, whereas firms citing other motives do not.

The Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act (IBBEA) represented a significant step in the deregulation of interstate banking and branching. The IBBEA's passage had a positive wealth effect on a sample of large Bank Holding Companies (BHCs). Cross-sectional tests of abnormal returns reveal that BHCs having characteristics associated with acquisition targets and BHCs headquartered in states that prohibited interstate branching experienced significantly higher returns. Collectively, the evidence suggests that investors anticipated that the IBBEA would provide for increased corporate control activities among banks and that a large portion of the BHC gains stems from the relaxation of interstate branching restrictions.

This study examines the sensitivity of equity values of oil producers to changes in the uncertainty of future oil prices. We document that this sensitivity is negatively correlated with a firm's debt ratio and its production costs. These results indicate that companies that are more likely to experience financial distress or underinvestment from low cash flows are adversely affected by increases in the uncertainty of future cash flows. We conclude that corporate risk management can increase shareholder value by reducing the expected costs of financial distress and underinvestment.

Using a large sample of option granting firms, some of which were investigated for option grant backdating, we develop a predictive model for such investigations and examine how the capital market responded as the backdating scandal unfolded. Firms that were investigated experienced significant stock price declines from the beginning of the Wall Street Journal's Perfect Payday series through the end of 2006. Firms predicted to have backdating problems, but not the subject of publicly revealed investigations, experienced stock price performance during the same period that was remarkably similar to that of firms with publicly revealed investigations. In contrast, firms not predicted to have backdating problems experienced normal stock price performance. Our results suggest that capital markets disciplined companies with suspicious option grant histories, often prior to, and irrespective of, any public revelation of an investigation into the matter.