公司法的需求:法定灵活性、司法质量还是收购保护?

Marcel Kahan
{"title":"公司法的需求:法定灵活性、司法质量还是收购保护?","authors":"Marcel Kahan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.557869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an empirical examination of the determinants of firms' decisions where to incorporate. Consistent with our theoretical predictions, we find substantial evidence that firms are more likely to incorporate in states with corporate law rules that offer firms flexibility to devise their governance arrangement and significant but less robust evidence that firms are more likely to incorporate in states with higher quality judicial systems. Unlike prior studies, we find no evidence that firms are more or less likely to incorporate in states with anti-takeover statutes. The latter results are consistent with the hypothesis that anti-takeover statutes have no significant effect on a company's marginal ability to resist takeovers.","PeriodicalId":106641,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"57","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Demand for Corporate Law: Statutory Flexibility, Judicial Quality, or Takeover Protection?\",\"authors\":\"Marcel Kahan\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.557869\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article provides an empirical examination of the determinants of firms' decisions where to incorporate. Consistent with our theoretical predictions, we find substantial evidence that firms are more likely to incorporate in states with corporate law rules that offer firms flexibility to devise their governance arrangement and significant but less robust evidence that firms are more likely to incorporate in states with higher quality judicial systems. Unlike prior studies, we find no evidence that firms are more or less likely to incorporate in states with anti-takeover statutes. The latter results are consistent with the hypothesis that anti-takeover statutes have no significant effect on a company's marginal ability to resist takeovers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":106641,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"57\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.557869\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.557869","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 57

摘要

这篇文章提供了一个实证检验的决定因素的企业决定在哪里注册。与我们的理论预测一致,我们发现大量证据表明,公司更有可能在拥有公司法规则的州注册,这些规则为公司提供了设计治理安排的灵活性,并且有重要但不太有力的证据表明,公司更有可能在拥有更高质量司法系统的州注册。与先前的研究不同,我们没有发现任何证据表明公司或多或少倾向于在有反收购法规的州进行合并。后者的结果与反收购法规对公司抵抗收购的边际能力没有显著影响的假设是一致的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Demand for Corporate Law: Statutory Flexibility, Judicial Quality, or Takeover Protection?
This article provides an empirical examination of the determinants of firms' decisions where to incorporate. Consistent with our theoretical predictions, we find substantial evidence that firms are more likely to incorporate in states with corporate law rules that offer firms flexibility to devise their governance arrangement and significant but less robust evidence that firms are more likely to incorporate in states with higher quality judicial systems. Unlike prior studies, we find no evidence that firms are more or less likely to incorporate in states with anti-takeover statutes. The latter results are consistent with the hypothesis that anti-takeover statutes have no significant effect on a company's marginal ability to resist takeovers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Delisting Decision: The Case of Buyout Offers with Squeeze-Out (BOSO) Shareholder Oppression and Reasonable Expectations: Of Change, Gifts, and Inheritances in Close Corporation Disputes Valuation of Shares in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises - A Legal Perspective on Valuation with a Special Emphasis on Shareholder Conflicts Informed Trading around Acquisitions: Evidence from Corporate Bonds Primetime for Subprime: Evaluation of the Treasury's Proposal to Prevent Another Credit Crisis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1