Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T12:35:21.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relevance of Fiduciary Conflict-of-Interests in Control versus Issue Proxy Contests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Robert A. Jarrow  and
J. Chris Leach
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of fiduciaries with conflicting interests has received considerable attention recently. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the role of a fiduciary casting votes under conflicting interests in proxy contests that seek to control the corporation and those waged solely for the purpose of deciding an issue. By deriving comparisons across types of contests, we provide implications concerning differences in success probabilities and resolution effects for the two types of contests. The empirical verification (refutation) of such effects would provide insight regarding the (ir)relevance of fiduciary conflict-of-interests in proxy contests.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 533 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aranow, E. R., and Einhorn, H. A.. Proxy Contests for Corporate Control, 2nd edition. New York: Columbia Univ. Press (1986).Google Scholar
Chernoff, J. “Proposed Suit Could Define Bank Trustees' Responsibility.” Pensions and Investment Age (05 14, 1984), 2.Google Scholar
Chernoff, J. “Share Votes Remain Issue.” Pensions and Investment Age (11 25, 1985), 27.Google Scholar
Dodd, P., and Warner, J. B.. “On Corporate Governance: A Study of Proxy Contests.” Journal of Financial Economics, 11 (04 1983), 401–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M., and Raviv, A.. “Corporate Governance: Voting Rights and Majority Rule.” Journal of Financial Economics, 20 (01/03 1988), 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linn, S. C., and McConnel, J. J.. “An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of ‘Antitakeover‘ Amendments of Common Stock Prices.” Journal of Financial Economics, 11 (04 1983), 361–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, R. “Funds Can't Hide Any Longer From Activist Sharehold Role.” Pension and Investment Age (05 28, 1983), 46.Google Scholar
Monks, R., and Minow, N.. “Votes Under Microscope: Avon Letter Sets Process.” Pensions and Investment Age (04 4, 1988), 25.Google Scholar
Parker, M. “Proxy Solicitation Under Fire as Votes Near.” Pensions and Investment Age (03 23, 1987a), 1.Google Scholar
Parker, M. “State Seeks Proxy Vote Disclosure.” Pensions and Investment Age (05 4, 1987b), 1.Google Scholar
Parker, M. “The Proxy Pressure's On: Managers Admit to More Than Fund Execs.” Pensions and Investment Age (09 21, 1987c), 1.Google Scholar
Parker, M., and Givant, M.. “Executives Warned of Proxy Vote Liability.” Pensions and Investment Age (05 18, 1987), 1.Google Scholar
Ring, T. “Shareholder Activism Up, But Management is Still Winning Proxy Fights.” Pensions and Investment Age (04 28, 1986), 29.Google Scholar
Shleifer, A., and Vishny, R.. “Large Shareholders and Corporate Control.” Journal of Political Economy, 94 (06 1986), 461–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trust, C. “Corporate Activism by Pension Managers is Urged by Labor Agency's Robert Monks.” Wall Street Journal (06 21, 1984).Google Scholar