Poison pills: 1980s vs. 1990s

Lee, Sharon K.; Pawlukiewicz, James E.
January 2000
American Business Review;Jan2000, Vol. 18 Issue 1, p28
Academic Journal
Provides evidence on the effect of a restrictive takeover defense such as poison pills on shareholders. Comparison on poison pill plans rates from the 1982-87 and the 1990-95 group; Significance of poison pills on stock holders; Wealth effects on the announcement of poison pill plans.


Related Articles

  • Tidewater, Solectron Scuttle Pills.  // Mergers & Acquisitions: The Dealermaker's Journal;Jan2007, Vol. 42 Issue 1, p13 

    The article reports that two more poison pills were snuffed out at publicly held companies Tidewater and Solectron in the U.S. in November 2006. Offshore oil services firm Tidewater let its shareholder rights plan expire while electronics manufacturer Solectron dropped its pill about five years...

  • Preventing control from the grave: A proposal for judicial treatment of dead hand provisions in... Lese, Shawn C. // Columbia Law Review;Dec96, Vol. 96 Issue 8, p2175 

    Analyzes the shareholder rights plan (poison pill) as a potent defense against corporate raiders in the United States. The negative effects on voting rights of the Continuing Directors provision in `poison pills'; Review of corporate jurisprudence on shareholder's electoral franchise.

  • Majority vote issue draws the most proxies. Burr, Barry B. // Pensions & Investments;4/3/2006, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p3 

    The article reports on some proposals submitted for shareholder votes in 2006. Some of the proposals are: providing for majority vote for election of directors, declassifying boards, tying executive pay to corporate performance and separating positions of chairman and chief executive. Other...

  • Bunge Limits Strength of Takeover Defenses. Canon, Grant // Mergers & Acquisitions Report;6/5/2006, Vol. 19 Issue 22, p1 

    Discusses the implications of the decision of shareholders at Bunge Ltd. to approve measures that will alter the company's poison pill. Impact of the decision of the shareholders on the shareholder rights plan of the company; Policy of Bunge for its shareholder rights plan; Reason behind the...

  • POISON-PILL DEFENSE.  // Business Insurance;4/28/2014, Vol. 48 Issue 9, p0056 

    The article offers information on the poison-pill defense or a shareholder rights plan including as a strategy use by publicly held companies to make them less attractive as takeover targets and to allow shareholders to buy more shares at a discount.

  • Pill foes claim some victories.  // Mergers & Acquisitions: The Dealermaker's Journal;Jan2000, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p18 

    Focuses on the efforts of institutional investors and opponents of poison pills to fight public companies' capital structures of the antitakeover defense in 1999. Ranks of firms installing shareholder rights plans; Increased incidence of hostile bids in the merger and acquisition market;...

  • How to Deal With Unwanted Suitors. Cody, Tamika // Investment Dealers' Digest;3/11/2011, Vol. 77 Issue 10, p8 

    The article focuses on the use of poison pills strategy to deter unwanted offers in company mergers and acquisitions in the U.S. According to the author, a ruling by the Delaware Court of Chancery encourages companies to use poison pills such as shareholder rights plan to avoid being targeted by...

  • The Poison Pill as Shield and Gavel. Kearney, Mark A. // Directors & Boards;Summer89, Vol. 13 Issue 4, p40 

    The article presents a guide to the key decisions on the uses of poison pills and when boards may redeem them. By definition, poison pills provide shareholders certain rights upon the development of specified triggering events. The various forms of poison pills like a flipover, a flip-in and the...

  • POISON VOTE AT NEWS CORP. Goldsmith, Jill // Daily Variety;4/7/2006, Vol. 291 Issue 5, p31 

    The article reports on the settlement of a lawsuit between News Corp. and shareholders in Delaware. The conflict stemmed on the decision of the management to implement a poison pill to prevent hostile takeover of the company. The shareholders demanded their right to vote on the said issue....


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics