An Antitakeover Amendment for Stakeholders?
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The non-financial effects (NFE) antitakeover amendment addresses the duties of company directors and management when faced with a possible takeover bid. The NFE amendment either permits or requires managers to consider the interests of the company's stakeholders during takeover bids. Other types of antitakeover devices have been viewed as protecting either stockholder or management interests. The NFE amendment would appear to protect a broad spectrum of interests including those of company employees, creditors, and the community in which the company operates. Positive market returns to the adoption of NFE amendments provide some evidence that investors approve. The percent of both management and institutional ownership are positively related to the market reaction to the NFE amendment adoption. To the extent that institutional ownership proxies for the broad spectrum of stakeholder interest, NFE devices, unlike some other amendments that have been studied, appear to be in the interests of more than a single interest group.
- Agrawal, A. and G. N. Mandelker: 1990, ‘Large Shareholders and the Monitoring of Managers: The Case of Antitakeover Charter Amendments’, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 25, 143–161.
- Baysinger, B. D. and H. N. Butler: 1985, ‘Antitakeover Amendments, Managerial Entrenchment and the Contractual Theory of the Corporation’, Virginia Law Review 71, 1257–1301.
- Bhagat, S. and J. A. Brickley: 1984, ‘Cumulative Voting: The Value of Minority Shareholder Voting Rights,’ Journal of Law and Economics 27, 339–365.
- Brickley, J. A., R. C. Lease, and C. W. Smith, Jr.: 1988, ‘Ownership Structure and Voting on Antitakeover Amendments’, Journal of Financial Economics 20, 267–291.
- Carney, W. J. 1986, ‘Two-Tier Tender Offers and Shark Repellents’, Midland Corporate Finance Journal 4, 48–56.
- Cary, W.: 1969, ‘Corporate Devices Used to Insulate Management From Attack’, Antitrust Law Journal 39, 318–324.
- Cornett, M. M. and M. R. Vetsuypens: 1989, ‘Voting Rights and Shareholder Wealth’, Mangerial and Decision Economics 10, 175–188.
- Dann, L. Y. and H. DeAngelo: 1988, ‘Corporate Financial Policy and Corporate Control’, Journal of Financial Economics 20, 87–127.
- DeAngelo, H. and E. M. Rice: 1983, ‘Antitakeover Charter Amendments and Stockholder Wealth,’ Journal of Financial Economics 11, 329–359.
- Demsetz, H.: 1983. ‘The Structure of Ownership and the Theory of the Firm’, Journal of Law and Economics 26, 375–390.
- Dill, W. R.: 1958. ‘Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy’, Administrative Quarterly, 1, 409–443.
- Eckbo, B. E.: 1990. ‘Valuation Effects of Greenmail Prohibitions’, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 25, 491–505.
- Freeman, R. E.: 1984 Strategic Management-A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman: Marshfield, MA.).
- Freeman, R. E. and D. L. Reed: 1983, ‘Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance’, California Management Review 25, 88–106.
- Hanley, K.: 1992, ‘Hostile Takeovrs and Methods of Defense: A Stakeholder Analysis’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 895–913.
- Harris, E. G.: 1990 ‘Antitakeover Measures, Golden Parachutes, and Target Firm Shareholder Wealth’, RAND Journal of Economics 21, 614–625.
- Investors Responsibility Research Center: 1990, Corporate Takeover Defenses.
- Investors Responsibility Research Center: 1991, State Takeover Laws.
- Jarrell, G. A. and A. B. Poulsen: 1987 ‘Shark Repellents and Stock Prices: The Effects of Antitakeover Amendments Since 1980’, Journal of Financial Economics 19, 127–168.
- Jarrell, G. A.: 1988. ‘Dual-class Recaptializations as Antitakeover Mechanisms: The Recent Evidence’, Journal of Financial Economics 20, 129–152.
- Jensen, M. C.: 1986. ‘The Takeover Controversy: Analysis and Evidence’, Midland Corporate Finance Journal 4, 6–32.
- Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling: 1976. ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure’, Journal of Financial Economices 3, 305–360.
- Jones, T. M.: 1995. ‘Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics’, Academy of Management Review (April), 404–437.
- Linn, S. C. and J. J. McConnell: 1983. ‘An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of ‘Antitakeover’ Amendments on Common Stock Prices’, Journal of Financial Economics 11, 316–99.
- Mahoney, J. M. and J. T. Mahoney: 1993. ‘An Empirical Investigation of the ffect of Corporate Charter Antitakeover Amendments on Stockholder Wealth’, Strategic Management Journal 14, 17–31.
- Meade, N. L. and R. M. Brown: 1995. ‘Antitakeover Devices and Management Efficiency: An Empirical Study Using Accounting Measures’, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 5, 375–392.
- Newton, L.: 1988. ‘The Hostile Takeover: An Opposition View’, in T. Beauchamp and N. Bowie (eds.), Ethical Theory and Business, 3rd edition (Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J.), pp. 501–510.
- Preston, L. E. and H. J. Sapienza: 1990 ‘Stakeholder Management and Corporate Preformance’, Journal of Behavioral Economics 19, 361–375.
- Shliefer, A. and L. H. Summers: 1988 ‘Breach of Trust in Hostile Takeovers.’ in Alan J. Auerbach (ed.), Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences, (University of Chicago Press; Chicago, Ill.), pp. 33–67.
- Shliefer, A. and R. W. Vishny: 1986 ‘Greenmail, White Knights, and Shareholders' Interest’, RAND Journal of Economics 17, 293–309.
- Wang, J. and D. Dewhirst: 1992. ‘Boards of Directors and Stakeholder Orientation’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 115–123.
- Williamson, O. E.: 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (The Free Press: A division of MacMillian Publishing: New York, N.Y.).
- An Antitakeover Amendment for Stakeholders?
Journal of Business Ethics
Volume 16, Issue 15 , pp 1651-1659
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors