Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Laurentius Marais, K. Schipper, Abbie Smith (1989)
Wealth effects of going private for senior securitiesJournal of Financial Economics, 23
Larry Dann, W. Mikkelson (1984)
Convertible debt issuance, capital structure change and financing-related information: Some new evidenceJournal of Financial Economics, 13
P. Asquith, Thierry Wizman (1990)
Event risk, covenants, and bondholder returns in leveraged buyoutsJournal of Financial Economics, 27
Michael Ryngaert (1988)
The effect of poison pill securities on shareholder wealthJournal of Financial Economics, 20
L. Crabbe (1991)
Event Risk: An Analysis of Losses to Bondholders and “Super Poison Put” Bond CovenantsJournal of Finance, 46
Eckbo Eckbo (1986)
Valuation effects of corporate debt offeringsJournal of Financial Economics, 15
Arthur Warga, I. Welch (1993)
BONDHOLDER LOSSES IN LEVERAGED BUYOUTSReview of Financial Studies, 6
K. Lehn, A. Poulsen (1991)
Contractual Resolution of Bondholder-Stockholder Conflicts in Leveraged BuyoutsThe Journal of Law and Economics, 34
Douglas Cook, John Easterwood, John Martin (1992)
Bondholder Wealth Effects of Management BuyoutsFinancial Management, 21
Peter Dodd, Jerold Warner (1983)
On corporate governance: A study of proxy contestsJournal of Financial Economics, 11
J. Patell (1976)
CORPORATE FORECASTS OF EARNINGS PER SHARE AND STOCK-PRICE BEHAVIOR - EMPIRICAL TESTSJournal of Accounting Research, 14
Y. Amihud, B. Lev (1981)
Risk Reduction as a Managerial Motive for Conglomerate MergersThe Bell Journal of Economics, 12
B. Eckbo (1985)
Valuation Effects of Corporate Debt OfferingsCorporate Finance: Valuation
Paul Malatesta, Ralph Walkling (1988)
Poison pill securities: Stockholder wealth, profitability, and ownership structureJournal of Financial Economics, 20
ABSTRACT This article examines the effect of issuing debt with and without “poison put” covenants on outstanding debt and equity claims for the period 1988 to 1989. The analysis shows that “poison put” covenants affect stockholders negatively and outstanding bondholders positively, while debt issued without such covenants has no effect. The study also finds a negative relationship between stock and bond returns for firms issuing poison put debt. These results are consistent with a “mutual interest hypothesis,” which suggests that the issuance of poison put debt protects managers and, coincidentally, bondholders, at the expense of stockholders.
The Journal of Finance – Wiley
Published: Dec 1, 1994
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.