Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Management and Governance 2/2012

01-05-2012

Corporate governance convergence in Germany through shareholder activism: Impact of the Deutsche Boerse bid for London Stock Exchange

Authors: Sudi Sudarsanam, Tim Broadhurst

Published in: Journal of Management and Governance | Issue 2/2012

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This case study examines the shareholder revolt initiated by a small activist shareholder, which eventually thwarted a takeover bid by Deutsche Boerse for the London Stock Exchange and forced the resignation of two of its highest profile board members. Primarily the case marks the emergence of the Anglo-American style shareholder rights movement in a country that offers only limited power to the shareholders of corporations. In the process it illustrates the mechanisms by which functional convergence of corporate governance regimes can occur long before the legal framework catches up. In Germany, the corporate governance regime requires stakeholder interests to be maximised rather than the sole interests of shareholders. This paper chronicles the shareholder actions that forced the takeover bid to be abandoned and seeks to provide an understanding of the motivations behind the activists’ campaign and the process by which they were able to overcome difficult odds and win their campaign. In this respect, it provides a useful insight into the processes used by relatively small investors to exercise their rights to thwart a takeover offer and topple some powerful corporate executives. Furthermore, the case illustrates how a single issue such as the strategic logic or the value creation potential of a takeover bid can rapidly spiral to become a wider campaign over deeply rooted governance concerns at targeted companies. Event study analysis reveals the stock market reaction to the activists’ intervention. Thirdly, the case sheds light on the importance of communication between management and shareholders especially when corporate decisions of great strategic import, such as a takeover, are being implemented. The globalisation of stock markets is empowering shareholders to assert their rights and their activism is driving corporate governance regimes towards greater convergence and recognition of the primacy of shareholder interests. Overall, the case raises a number of important issues regarding the corporate governance regime in Germany, the challenges posed by overseas investors, and the international convergence of corporate governance regimes. The case further suggests an additional mechanism by which international governance systems can converge functionally towards a common theme even if the form of national regimes remains largely unaltered. Our results are consistent with the institutional theory perspective of coercive isomorphism in adopting the shareholder value paradigm by Deutsche Boerse.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
Stakeholder-centred governance may also include other stakeholder constituencies such as government as an investor. But we exclude these constituencies from our discussion in this paper.
 
2
For a detailed explanation of the corporate control market and its merits, see works by Franks and Harris (1989), Sudarsanam et al. (1996), Sudarsanam and Mahate (2003), Goergen and Renneboog (2003).
 
3
See for instance Lane (2003), Cernat (2004), Edwards (2004).
 
4
A hedge fund is a private, largely unregulated pool of capital whose managers can buy or sell any assets, bet on falling as well as rising assets and participate substantially in profits from money invested. It charges both a performance fee and a management fee. Typically open only to qualified investors, hedge fund activity in the public securities markets has grown substantially, accounting for approximately 10% of all US fixed-income security transactions, 35% of US activity in derivatives with investment-grade ratings, 55% of the trading volume for emerging-market bonds, and 30% of equity trades. Hedge Funds dominate certain specialty markets such as derivatives with high-yield ratings and distressed debt (from http://​www.​hedgefundregulat​ion.​com).
 
5
Gillan and Starks (2007) state that, in the period 1987–1994, 2,042 (average 255 a year) proposals were submitted by US institutional investors. Over the period 2001–2005, institutional investors submitted 1,730 proposals (average 346 per year), indicating that US activists were becoming more active. The US also has a number of large institutional investors, such as CalPERS, and TIAA-CREF or their trade association, CII, that routinely publish focus lists in the national press of companies against which they plan to take action over the following year. Many researchers, particularly from the US, have investigated the impact of institutional investor activism on target performance. CalPERS and TIAA-CREF, two of the high profile pension fund activists in America are often used as the sample for this task. Nesbitt (1994) finds a 41.3% abnormal return from CalPERS targeting over a 5 year horizon. Opler and Sokobin (1995) investigate the CII focus list activism and find a mean abnormal gain of 11.6% post-targeting equivalent to a $39.7 billion abnormal dollar return and state that CII focus list firms far outperformed benchmarks. However, Crutchley et al. (1998) find a negative return of 19.6%, 12 months after the initial targeting occurred. Del Guercio and Hawkins (1999) find no evidence that targeting by a large pension fund leads to significant long term improvements in shareholder value after the first 3 years. This is supported by English et al. (2004) and Nelson (2006). Thus the performance record is mixed.
 
6
Shareholder activism has been increasing in the UK over recent years. Hermes operates a UK based focus fund that invests in companies with the intention of unlocking shareholder value through changes in the companies operations or governance structures. More recently, traditionally passive investors have also been more active against their target companies (see 2007 Investment Management Association (IMA) and National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) engagement surveys). The first study to investigate engagement by European activists via a clinical study of the Hermes UK Focus Fund indicates a positive impact on shareholder value of up to 8% at the 41 companies invested in by the activist institution (Becht et al. 2008).
 
7
Hedge funds are taking an increasing role in shareholder activism. They have been responsible for high profile changes to targets such as Shell and Walt Disney. A handful of recent papers have assessed hedge fund activism and reported a positive impact on target performance. Boyson and Mooradian (2007) study the impact of hedge funds’ activism between 1994 and 2005. They find a positive abnormal return of 2 and 8% over the short term, with significant long term improvements also reported. This is supported by Klein and Zur (2009), who document a 10.3% abnormal return as opposed to a non hedge fund activist return of 5.2% and control firm return of 2.9%. Similar findings for US activism by hedge funds are recorded by Brav et al. (2006), Bratton (2007), Briggs (2007) and Clifford (2008).
 
8
Under codetermination, a proportion of the supervisory board represents the employees of the company. This is explained in more depth in the following section.
 
9
It should be noted that there is also a parallel convergence of accounting standards between the US GAAP and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in recent years.
 
10
Functional convergence of national governance systems may be manifested in removal of underperforming management. As Gilson (2001) states, “any successful system must find a way to replace poorly performing senior managers” (p 339). Despite the fundamental difference between a bank based regime and one centred on the stock market, senior manager tenure is directly related to the performance of the firm (Dietl 1998).
 
11
See Goergen and Renneboog (2008) for a discussion of contractual corporate governance.
 
12
Data taken from the World Federation of Exchanges. http://​www.​world-exchanges.​org/​.
 
13
See Becht and Boehmer (2003) and Goergen et al. (2008) for a summary of the literature regarding ownership and control amongst German companies.
 
14
Traditionally, when companies sold a cross-shareholding they would have been forced to pay 40% capital gains tax on the sale. The 2002 tax change has abolished this condition (see Goergen et al. 2008 for details).
 
15
See Goergen et al. 2008 for a full explanation of these ownership mechanisms.
 
16
The German Corporate Governance Code as amended in 2005 is a voluntary code that utilises a ‘comply or explain’ principle similar to that found in the UK Combined Code on Corporate Governance (updated in 2006). Firms either comply with the Code or explain why they are not complying.
 
17
The composition of the external directors is explained later in this section.
 
18
Goergen et al. (2008) provide an extensive discussion on the convergence of the German corporate governance system towards the Anglo-American model.
 
19
FFG I is the First Financial Market Promotions Act (Erstes Finanzmarktförderungsgesetz), FFG II is the Second Financial Market Promotions Act (Zweites Finanzmarktförderungsgesetzt), and FFG 3 is the Third Financial Market Promotions Act (Drittes Finanzmarktförderungsgesetz).
 
20
Empirical evidence that hostile takeover targets are relatively poor performers is not conclusive. Indeed, Franks and Mayer (1996), and Sudarsanam and Mahate (2006) for the UK and Kini et al. (2004) for the US find that the pre-bid stock return performance of hostile and friendly bid targets is not significantly different.
 
21
See Goergen et al. (2008) for an explanation of the reforms to the German takeover code. One of the important impediments to hostile takeovers in Germany is the power of block shareholders.
 
22
The LSE had 334 foreign listings in 2004, rising to 351 and 343 in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Over the same 3 years, the NYSE had 459, 452 and 451 overseas listing on its exchange. DB had 116, 159, 105 and Euronext 293, 334 and 256 overseas listings, respectively. Source data taken from the World Federation of Exchanges, http://​www.​world-exchanges.​org/​.
 
23
The iX merger in 2000 was the first attempted merger between the LSE and Deutsche Boerse.
 
24
Since the failed takeover attempt analysed in this paper a round of consolidation in global stock markets has occurred. Euronext has merged with NYSE; NASDAQ has purchased OM; and the LSE merged with Borsa Italiana.
 
25
“It’s iX-mas time again,” Deutsche Bank Analyst Report, 13th December 2004; “XO,” Deutsche Bank Analyst Report, 17 January 2005.
 
26
Deutsche Boerse Annual Report, 2005. http://​deutsche-boerse.​com.
 
27
Letter to The Competition Commission, 22nd April 2005. http://​www.​competition-commission.​org.​uk/​Inquiries/​ref2005/​lse.
 
28
DB planned to use the funds generated by the IPO to undertake acquisitions that would make DB Europe’s premier stock exchange. (See: “Deutsche Borse Grows Rich and Hungry”, Business Week, 19th February 2001).
 
29
See Sudarsanam and Broadhurst (2008) for a survey of shareholder activism by UK institutional investors and their views about campaigns waged by hedge funds.
 
30
“Parvus and GLG funds lead the Winners at EuroHedge Awards”, Eurohedge, 25th January 2006.
 
31
“Funds Ranked on Support for Corporate Governance Proposals in 2005”, The Corporate Library Blog, 7th January 2006.
 
32
“Börse rebel threatens to derail LSE bid”, The Guardian, 17th January 2005.
 
33
“Deutsche Boerse faces increasing shareholder opposition to LSE bid—update 4”, www.​newratings.​com, January 18th 2005.
 
34
See Deutsche Boerse Annual reports 2004 and 2005 for details of the Supervisory Board members and their associated directorships. www.​deutsche-borse.​com.
 
35
See Deutsche Boerse annual reports for Supervisory Board members and their directorships.
 
36
"Rothschild to lead battle for Börse rebels", The Sunday Times, 27th February 2005.
 
37
Ft.com, 17th January 2005.
 
38
“The battle for the Bourses”, Business Week, 22nd May 2006.
 
39
“A little fund with big demands”, Business Week, 23rd May 2005.
 
40
“The battle for the Bourses”, Business Week, 22nd May 2006.
 
41
"Rothschild to lead battle for Börse rebels", The Sunday Times, 27th February 2005.
 
42
“Rebel Deutsche shareholder calls for vote on LSE bid”, Finextra.com, 17th January 2005.
 
43
“A Little Fund With Big Demands”, Business Week, 23rd May 2005.
 
Literature
go back to reference Barca, F., & Becht, M. (2001). The control of corporate Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barca, F., & Becht, M. (2001). The control of corporate Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Bebchuk, L., & Roe, M. (1999). A theory of path dependence of corporate ownership and governance. Stanford Law Review, 52, 127–170.CrossRef Bebchuk, L., & Roe, M. (1999). A theory of path dependence of corporate ownership and governance. Stanford Law Review, 52, 127–170.CrossRef
go back to reference Becht, M., & Boehmer, E. (2003). Voting control in German corporations. International Review of Law and Economics, 23, 1–29.CrossRef Becht, M., & Boehmer, E. (2003). Voting control in German corporations. International Review of Law and Economics, 23, 1–29.CrossRef
go back to reference Becht, M., Franks, J. R., Mayer, C., & Rossi, S. (2008). Returns to shareholder activism: Evidence from a clinical study of the Hermes U.K. Focus Fund. Review of Financial Studies, 1. Becht, M., Franks, J. R., Mayer, C., & Rossi, S. (2008). Returns to shareholder activism: Evidence from a clinical study of the Hermes U.K. Focus Fund. Review of Financial Studies, 1.
go back to reference Boyson, N. M., & Mooradian, R. M., (2007). Hedge funds as shareholder activists from 1994-2005. Working Paper. Northeastern University. Boyson, N. M., & Mooradian, R. M., (2007). Hedge funds as shareholder activists from 1994-2005. Working Paper. Northeastern University.
go back to reference Bratton, W. W. (2007). Hedge funds and governance targets. Georgetown Law Journal, 95, 1375–1433. Bratton, W. W. (2007). Hedge funds and governance targets. Georgetown Law Journal, 95, 1375–1433.
go back to reference Briggs, T. W. (2007). Corporate governance and the new hedge fund activism: An empirical analysis. Journal of Corporation Law, 32(4). Briggs, T. W. (2007). Corporate governance and the new hedge fund activism: An empirical analysis. Journal of Corporation Law, 32(4).
go back to reference Bruner, R. (2004). Applied mergers and acquisitions. London: Wiley. Bruner, R. (2004). Applied mergers and acquisitions. London: Wiley.
go back to reference Cernat, L. (2004). The emerging European corporate governance model: Anglo-American, continental, or still the century of diversity? Journal of European Public Policy, 11(1), 147–166.CrossRef Cernat, L. (2004). The emerging European corporate governance model: Anglo-American, continental, or still the century of diversity? Journal of European Public Policy, 11(1), 147–166.CrossRef
go back to reference Clifford, C. (2008). Value creation or destruction? Hedge funds as shareholder activists. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(4), 323–336.CrossRef Clifford, C. (2008). Value creation or destruction? Hedge funds as shareholder activists. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(4), 323–336.CrossRef
go back to reference Coffee, J. (2000). Convergence and its critics: What are the preconditions to the separation of ownership and control? Columbia Law School Center for Law and Economic Studies Working Paper No. 170. Coffee, J. (2000). Convergence and its critics: What are the preconditions to the separation of ownership and control? Columbia Law School Center for Law and Economic Studies Working Paper No. 170.
go back to reference Comment, R., & Schwert, G. (1995). Poison or Placebo? Evidence on the deterrence and wealth effects of modern antitakeover devices. Journal of Financial Economics, 39(1), 3–43.CrossRef Comment, R., & Schwert, G. (1995). Poison or Placebo? Evidence on the deterrence and wealth effects of modern antitakeover devices. Journal of Financial Economics, 39(1), 3–43.CrossRef
go back to reference Crutchley, C. E., Hudson, C. D., & Jensen, M. R. H. (1998). Shareholder wealth effects of CalPERS’ activism. Financial Services Review, 7(1), 1–10.CrossRef Crutchley, C. E., Hudson, C. D., & Jensen, M. R. H. (1998). Shareholder wealth effects of CalPERS’ activism. Financial Services Review, 7(1), 1–10.CrossRef
go back to reference de Jong, A., De Jong, D. V., Mertens, G. & Wasley, C. (2002). The role of self-regulation in corporate governance: Evidence from the Netherlands. Working paper. de Jong, A., De Jong, D. V., Mertens, G. & Wasley, C. (2002). The role of self-regulation in corporate governance: Evidence from the Netherlands. Working paper.
go back to reference Del Guercio, D., & Hawkins, J. (1999). The motivation and impact of pension fund activism. Journal of Financial Economics, 52(3), 293–340.CrossRef Del Guercio, D., & Hawkins, J. (1999). The motivation and impact of pension fund activism. Journal of Financial Economics, 52(3), 293–340.CrossRef
go back to reference Dietl, H. M. (1998). Capital markets and corporate governance in Japan. Germany and the United States. Routledge. Dietl, H. M. (1998). Capital markets and corporate governance in Japan. Germany and the United States. Routledge.
go back to reference DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRef DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRef
go back to reference DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). Introduction. In W. Powell, & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–38. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). Introduction. In W. Powell, & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–38.
go back to reference Drobetz, W., Schillhofer, A., & Zimmermann, H. (2004). Corporate governance and expected stock returns: Evidence from Germany. European Financial Management, 10(2), 267–293.CrossRef Drobetz, W., Schillhofer, A., & Zimmermann, H. (2004). Corporate governance and expected stock returns: Evidence from Germany. European Financial Management, 10(2), 267–293.CrossRef
go back to reference Edwards, T. (2004). Corporate governance, industrial relations and trends in company-level restructuring in Europe: Convergence towards the anglo-american model? Industrial Relations Journal, 35(6), 518–535.CrossRef Edwards, T. (2004). Corporate governance, industrial relations and trends in company-level restructuring in Europe: Convergence towards the anglo-american model? Industrial Relations Journal, 35(6), 518–535.CrossRef
go back to reference Edwards, J., & Nibler, N. (2000). Corporate governance in Germany: The role of banks and ownership concentration. Economic Policy, 31, 239–267. Edwards, J., & Nibler, N. (2000). Corporate governance in Germany: The role of banks and ownership concentration. Economic Policy, 31, 239–267.
go back to reference English, I. P. C., Smythe, T. I., & McNeil, C. R. (2004). The “CalPERS effect” revisited. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10(1), 157–174.CrossRef English, I. P. C., Smythe, T. I., & McNeil, C. R. (2004). The “CalPERS effect” revisited. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10(1), 157–174.CrossRef
go back to reference Eube, S. (1998). Der Aktienmarkt in Deutschland vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg. Frankfurt am Main: Knapp. Eube, S. (1998). Der Aktienmarkt in Deutschland vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg. Frankfurt am Main: Knapp.
go back to reference Faccio, M., & Lang, L. (2002). The ultimate ownership of Western European companies. Journal of Financial Economics, 65, 365–395.CrossRef Faccio, M., & Lang, L. (2002). The ultimate ownership of Western European companies. Journal of Financial Economics, 65, 365–395.CrossRef
go back to reference Franks, J. R., & Harris, R. S. (1989). Shareholder wealth effects of corporate takeovers: The U.K. experience 1955–1985. Journal of Financial Economics, 23(2), 225–249.CrossRef Franks, J. R., & Harris, R. S. (1989). Shareholder wealth effects of corporate takeovers: The U.K. experience 1955–1985. Journal of Financial Economics, 23(2), 225–249.CrossRef
go back to reference Franks, J., & Mayer, C. (1996). Hostile takeovers and the correction of managerial failure. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 163–181.CrossRef Franks, J., & Mayer, C. (1996). Hostile takeovers and the correction of managerial failure. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 163–181.CrossRef
go back to reference Franks, J., & Mayer, C. (1998). Bank control, takeovers and corporate governance in Germany. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22, 1385–1403.CrossRef Franks, J., & Mayer, C. (1998). Bank control, takeovers and corporate governance in Germany. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22, 1385–1403.CrossRef
go back to reference Franks, J., & Mayer, C. (2001). Ownership and control in Germany. Review of Financial Studies, 14, 943–977.CrossRef Franks, J., & Mayer, C. (2001). Ownership and control in Germany. Review of Financial Studies, 14, 943–977.CrossRef
go back to reference Gillan, S., & Starks, L. T. (2007). The evolution of shareholder activism in the United States. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 19, 55–73.CrossRef Gillan, S., & Starks, L. T. (2007). The evolution of shareholder activism in the United States. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 19, 55–73.CrossRef
go back to reference Gilson, R. J. (2001). Globalizing corporate governance: Convergence of form or function. American Journal of Comparative Law, 49, 329–357.CrossRef Gilson, R. J. (2001). Globalizing corporate governance: Convergence of form or function. American Journal of Comparative Law, 49, 329–357.CrossRef
go back to reference Goergen, M., Manjon Antolin, M. C., & Renneboog, L. (2004). Recent developments in German corporate governance. International Review of Law and Economics, 28(3), 175–193.CrossRef Goergen, M., Manjon Antolin, M. C., & Renneboog, L. (2004). Recent developments in German corporate governance. International Review of Law and Economics, 28(3), 175–193.CrossRef
go back to reference Goergen, M., Manjon, M., & Renneboog, L. (2008). Is the German system of corporate governance converging towards the Anglo-American model? Journal of Management and Governance, 12(1), 37–71.CrossRef Goergen, M., Manjon, M., & Renneboog, L. (2008). Is the German system of corporate governance converging towards the Anglo-American model? Journal of Management and Governance, 12(1), 37–71.CrossRef
go back to reference Goergen, M., & Renneboog, L. (2003). Why are the levels of control (so) different in German and UK companies? Evidence from initial public offerings. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 19, 141–175.CrossRef Goergen, M., & Renneboog, L. (2003). Why are the levels of control (so) different in German and UK companies? Evidence from initial public offerings. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 19, 141–175.CrossRef
go back to reference Goergen, M., & Renneboog, L. (2008). Contractual corporate governance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(3), 166–182.CrossRef Goergen, M., & Renneboog, L. (2008). Contractual corporate governance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(3), 166–182.CrossRef
go back to reference Gompers, P. A., Ishii, J. L., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 107–155.CrossRef Gompers, P. A., Ishii, J. L., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 107–155.CrossRef
go back to reference Gompers, P. A., & Metrick, A. (2001). Institutional investors and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 229–259.CrossRef Gompers, P. A., & Metrick, A. (2001). Institutional investors and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 229–259.CrossRef
go back to reference Gordon, J. N. (1999). Pathways to corporate convergence? Two steps on the road to shareholder capitalism in Germany. Columbia Journal of European Law, 5, 219–241. Gordon, J. N. (1999). Pathways to corporate convergence? Two steps on the road to shareholder capitalism in Germany. Columbia Journal of European Law, 5, 219–241.
go back to reference Gordon, J. N., & Roe, M. J. (2004). Convergence and persistence in corporate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Gordon, J. N., & Roe, M. J. (2004). Convergence and persistence in corporate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Gorton, G., & Schmid, F. (2000). Universal banking and the performance of German firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 58, 29–80.CrossRef Gorton, G., & Schmid, F. (2000). Universal banking and the performance of German firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 58, 29–80.CrossRef
go back to reference Gregory, A. (1997). An examination of the long run performance of UK acquiring firms. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 24(7–8), 971–1002.CrossRef Gregory, A. (1997). An examination of the long run performance of UK acquiring firms. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 24(7–8), 971–1002.CrossRef
go back to reference Hansman, H., & Kraakman, R. (2001). The end of history for corporate law. Reprinted, e.g. In: J. N. Gordon & M. J. Roe (2004). Convergence and persistence in corporate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hansman, H., & Kraakman, R. (2001). The end of history for corporate law. Reprinted, e.g. In: J. N. Gordon & M. J. Roe (2004). Convergence and persistence in corporate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
go back to reference Hellwig, M. (2000). On the economics and politics of corporate finance and corporate control. In X. Vives (Ed.), Corporate governance: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 95–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hellwig, M. (2000). On the economics and politics of corporate finance and corporate control. In X. Vives (Ed.), Corporate governance: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 95–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
go back to reference Hopt, K. J. (2004). Corporate governance in Germany: Recent developments in company law and corporate governance code. In European corporate governance in company law and codes (Report prepared for the European Corporate Governance Conference of October 18, The Hague, The Netherlands). Hopt, K. J. (2004). Corporate governance in Germany: Recent developments in company law and corporate governance code. In European corporate governance in company law and codes (Report prepared for the European Corporate Governance Conference of October 18, The Hague, The Netherlands).
go back to reference Jenkinson, T., & Mayer, C. (1994). Hostile takeovers: Defence, attack and corporate governance. New York: McGraw-Hill. Jenkinson, T., & Mayer, C. (1994). Hostile takeovers: Defence, attack and corporate governance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
go back to reference Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48, 831–880.CrossRef Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48, 831–880.CrossRef
go back to reference Kini, O., Kracaw, W., & Mian, S. (2004). The nature of discipline by corporate takeovers. Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, 59(4), 1511–1552. Kini, O., Kracaw, W., & Mian, S. (2004). The nature of discipline by corporate takeovers. Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, 59(4), 1511–1552.
go back to reference Klein, A., & Zur, E. (2009). Entrepreneurial shareholder activism: Hedge funds and other private investors. Journal of Finance (forthcoming). Klein, A., & Zur, E. (2009). Entrepreneurial shareholder activism: Hedge funds and other private investors. Journal of Finance (forthcoming).
go back to reference Krahnen, J. P., & Schmidt, R. H. (2004). The German financial system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Krahnen, J. P., & Schmidt, R. H. (2004). The German financial system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (2000). Investor protection and corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1–2), 3–27.CrossRef La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (2000). Investor protection and corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1–2), 3–27.CrossRef
go back to reference Lane, C. (2003). Changes in corporate governance of German corporations: Convergence to the Anglo-American model? ESRC Centre for Business Research, Working Papers wp259. Lane, C. (2003). Changes in corporate governance of German corporations: Convergence to the Anglo-American model? ESRC Centre for Business Research, Working Papers wp259.
go back to reference Limmack, R. J. (1991). Corporate mergers and shareholder wealth effects: 1977–1986. Accounting and Business Research, 21(83), 239–251.CrossRef Limmack, R. J. (1991). Corporate mergers and shareholder wealth effects: 1977–1986. Accounting and Business Research, 21(83), 239–251.CrossRef
go back to reference Malatesta, P., & Walkling, R. (1988). The impact of poison pill securities on stockholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 347–370.CrossRef Malatesta, P., & Walkling, R. (1988). The impact of poison pill securities on stockholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 347–370.CrossRef
go back to reference McAndrews, J., & Stefanadis, C. (2002). The consolidation of European stock exchanges. Current Issues in Economics and Finance, 8(6). McAndrews, J., & Stefanadis, C. (2002). The consolidation of European stock exchanges. Current Issues in Economics and Finance, 8(6).
go back to reference Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1994). Comparing equilibria. American Economic Review, 84, 441–459. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1994). Comparing equilibria. American Economic Review, 84, 441–459.
go back to reference Nelson, J. M. (2006). The “CalPERS effect” revisited again. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(2), 187–213.CrossRef Nelson, J. M. (2006). The “CalPERS effect” revisited again. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(2), 187–213.CrossRef
go back to reference Nesbitt, S. L. (1994). Long-term rewards from shareholder activism: A study of the ‘CalPERS’ effect. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 6(4), 75–80.CrossRef Nesbitt, S. L. (1994). Long-term rewards from shareholder activism: A study of the ‘CalPERS’ effect. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 6(4), 75–80.CrossRef
go back to reference Opler, T. C. & Sokobin, J. (1995). Does coordinated institutional activism work? An analysis of the activities of the council of institutional investors. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics, Working Papers Series 95-5. Available at SSRN. Opler, T. C. & Sokobin, J. (1995). Does coordinated institutional activism work? An analysis of the activities of the council of institutional investors. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics, Working Papers Series 95-5. Available at SSRN.
go back to reference Porter, M. (1992). Capital disadvantage: America’s failing capital investment system. Harvard Business Review, 65–83. Porter, M. (1992). Capital disadvantage: America’s failing capital investment system. Harvard Business Review, 65–83.
go back to reference Renneboog, L. (2000). Ownership, managerial control and the governance of poorly performing companies listed on the Brussels stock exchange. Journal of Banking & Finance, 24(12), 1959–1999.CrossRef Renneboog, L. (2000). Ownership, managerial control and the governance of poorly performing companies listed on the Brussels stock exchange. Journal of Banking & Finance, 24(12), 1959–1999.CrossRef
go back to reference Rieckers, O., & Spindler, G. (2004). Corporate governance: Legal aspects. In J. Krahnen & R. Schmidt (Eds.), The German financial system (pp. 350–385). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 11.CrossRef Rieckers, O., & Spindler, G. (2004). Corporate governance: Legal aspects. In J. Krahnen & R. Schmidt (Eds.), The German financial system (pp. 350–385). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 11.CrossRef
go back to reference Schmidt, R. H., & Spindler, G. (2002). Path dependence, corporate governance and complementarity. International Finance, 5(3), 311–333.CrossRef Schmidt, R. H., & Spindler, G. (2002). Path dependence, corporate governance and complementarity. International Finance, 5(3), 311–333.CrossRef
go back to reference Seifert, W. G., & Voth, H. J. (2006). Invasion der Heuschrecken. Published by Econ. Only available in German. Seifert, W. G., & Voth, H. J. (2006). Invasion der Heuschrecken. Published by Econ. Only available in German.
go back to reference Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52, 737–783.CrossRef Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52, 737–783.CrossRef
go back to reference Sudarsanam, S. (2010). Creating value from mergers and acquisitions: The challenges (2nd ed.). FT Prentice Hall. Sudarsanam, S. (2010). Creating value from mergers and acquisitions: The challenges (2nd ed.). FT Prentice Hall.
go back to reference Sudarsanam, S., & Broadhurst, T. (2008). Shareholder engagement in the UK: Survey of motivations and practice. Cranfield School of Management Working Paper. Sudarsanam, S., & Broadhurst, T. (2008). Shareholder engagement in the UK: Survey of motivations and practice. Cranfield School of Management Working Paper.
go back to reference Sudarsanam, S., Holl, P., & Salami, A. (1996). Shareholder wealth gains in mergers: Effect of synergy and ownership structure. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 23, 673–698.CrossRef Sudarsanam, S., Holl, P., & Salami, A. (1996). Shareholder wealth gains in mergers: Effect of synergy and ownership structure. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 23, 673–698.CrossRef
go back to reference Sudarsanam, P. S., & Huang, J. (2006). Managerial incentives and overconfidence: Impact of risk taking and acquirer value in mergers and acquisitions. 2006 Financial Management Association Annual Meeting paper. Sudarsanam, P. S., & Huang, J. (2006). Managerial incentives and overconfidence: Impact of risk taking and acquirer value in mergers and acquisitions. 2006 Financial Management Association Annual Meeting paper.
go back to reference Sudarsanam, S., & Mahate, A. A. (2003). Discussion of glamour acquirers, method of payment and post-acquisition performance: The UK evidence. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(1–2), 299–342.CrossRef Sudarsanam, S., & Mahate, A. A. (2003). Discussion of glamour acquirers, method of payment and post-acquisition performance: The UK evidence. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(1–2), 299–342.CrossRef
go back to reference Sudarsanam, S., & Mahate, A. (2006). Are friendly acquisitions too bad for shareholders and managers? Long-term value creation and top management turnover in hostile and friendly acquirers. British Journal of Management, 17(S1), S7–S30.CrossRef Sudarsanam, S., & Mahate, A. (2006). Are friendly acquisitions too bad for shareholders and managers? Long-term value creation and top management turnover in hostile and friendly acquirers. British Journal of Management, 17(S1), S7–S30.CrossRef
go back to reference Windolf, P. (2002). Corporate networks in Europe and the United States. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(3), 543–546. Windolf, P. (2002). Corporate networks in Europe and the United States. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(3), 543–546.
go back to reference Zattoni, A., & Cuomo, F. (2008). Why adopt codes of good governance? A comparison of institutional and efficiency perspectives. Corporate Governance, 16. Zattoni, A., & Cuomo, F. (2008). Why adopt codes of good governance? A comparison of institutional and efficiency perspectives. Corporate Governance, 16.
Metadata
Title
Corporate governance convergence in Germany through shareholder activism: Impact of the Deutsche Boerse bid for London Stock Exchange
Authors
Sudi Sudarsanam
Tim Broadhurst
Publication date
01-05-2012
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Management and Governance / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 1385-3457
Electronic ISSN: 1572-963X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9141-6

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

Journal of Management and Governance 2/2012 Go to the issue

Premium Partner