接管防御工作。这是一件坏事吗

IF 4.9 1区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences Stanford Law Review Pub Date : 2002-12-01 DOI:10.2307/1229671
M. Gordon
{"title":"接管防御工作。这是一件坏事吗","authors":"M. Gordon","doi":"10.2307/1229671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy,1 Professors Lucian Arye Bebchuk, John C. Coates IV, and Guhan Subramanian (BC&S) purport to demonstrate that hostile takeover targets that have a poison pill rights plan and an \"effective\" staggered board can-\"and most of the time do\"2-remain independent rather than sell themselves to the initial raider or another buyer. As presented, their findings turn conventional wisdom on its head and justify, in their view, significant \"reconsideration\" of the law regarding takeover defenses. Are they on to something here? Should we, indeed, be shocked-shocked!-to lear that takeover defenses work?","PeriodicalId":51386,"journal":{"name":"Stanford Law Review","volume":"55 1","pages":"819-837"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2002-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1229671","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Takeover Defenses Work. Is That Such a Bad Thing\",\"authors\":\"M. Gordon\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/1229671\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy,1 Professors Lucian Arye Bebchuk, John C. Coates IV, and Guhan Subramanian (BC&S) purport to demonstrate that hostile takeover targets that have a poison pill rights plan and an \\\"effective\\\" staggered board can-\\\"and most of the time do\\\"2-remain independent rather than sell themselves to the initial raider or another buyer. As presented, their findings turn conventional wisdom on its head and justify, in their view, significant \\\"reconsideration\\\" of the law regarding takeover defenses. Are they on to something here? Should we, indeed, be shocked-shocked!-to lear that takeover defenses work?\",\"PeriodicalId\":51386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stanford Law Review\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"819-837\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1229671\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stanford Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/1229671\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1229671","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

在《交错董事会的强大反收购力量:理论、证据和政策》一书中,Lucian Arye Bebchuk、John C. Coates IV和Guhan Subramanian (BC&S)教授试图证明,拥有毒丸权利计划和“有效的”交错董事会的恶意收购目标可以——“大多数时候确实如此”——保持独立,而不是将自己卖给最初的收购者或另一个买家。正如所提出的,他们的发现颠覆了传统智慧,并证明了在他们看来,对有关收购防御的法律进行重大“重新考虑”是合理的。他们有什么发现吗?我们真的应该感到震惊吗?-知道收购防御有效吗?
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
Takeover Defenses Work. Is That Such a Bad Thing
In The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy,1 Professors Lucian Arye Bebchuk, John C. Coates IV, and Guhan Subramanian (BC&S) purport to demonstrate that hostile takeover targets that have a poison pill rights plan and an "effective" staggered board can-"and most of the time do"2-remain independent rather than sell themselves to the initial raider or another buyer. As presented, their findings turn conventional wisdom on its head and justify, in their view, significant "reconsideration" of the law regarding takeover defenses. Are they on to something here? Should we, indeed, be shocked-shocked!-to lear that takeover defenses work?
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Does nationality affect nurses' information security participation? A comparative study in Iran and Poland. "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. What Is Federalism in Healthcare For? "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. Interrogated with Intellectual Disabilities: The Risks of False Confession.
×
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