GCGC

Video

Prof. Robert M. Daines (Stanford Law School) presents his paper on "Can Staggered Boards Improve Value? Evidence from the Massachusetts Natural Experiment" at the 2016 GCGC Conference in Stockholm. Discussion of the paper is then presented by Prof. Renee Adams (UNSW Business School, University of New South Wales). 

16 July 2018

Presentation

This paper clarifies why corporate governance arrangements in public firms generally do not make use of judicial evaluations of boards’ and managers’ business decisions. In principle, information generated in litigation, particularly discovery, could usefully supplement public information (particulary stock prices) in the provision of performance incentives. In particular, the optimally adjusted combination of standard performance pay and litigation could impose less risk on boards and managers than standard performance pay alone.

July 16 2018

We analyse a sample of 85 bylaws adopted by Norwegian corporations prior to the existence of corporate law in Norway. At that time, Norway had a free-contracting regime, granting individuals the right to freely found limited-liability companies and write their governance structures as they saw fit. All firms appoint a Board of Directors, which at the time, was more akin to a management board, but in a quarter of firms a co-existing Board of Representatives is established.

July 16 2018

Most listed firms are freestanding in the U.S, while listed firms in other countries often belong to business groups: lasting structures in which listed firms control other listed firms.

July 16 2018

In a system of federated states such as the United States and the European Union, there are, in general, three alternative approaches to chartering business corporations. The first is the real seat doctrine, under which corporations are required to be chartered in – and hence their governance is determined by the law of – the member state where they have their principal place of business.

July 16 2018

We present a model where firms compete for scarce managerial talent (“alpha”) and managers are risk-averse. When managers cannot move across firms after being hired, employers learn about their talent, allocate them efficiently to projects and provide insurance to low-quality managers. When instead managers can move across firms, firm-level coinsurance is no longer feasible, but managers may self-insure by switching employer to delay the revelation of their true quality. However this results in inefficient project assignment, with low quality managers handling too risky projects.

July 16 2018

‘Disruptive’ innovations are powerful forces for reshaping activities and generating growth. Yet by definition, the properties (what they can do) and consequences (whether they disrupt) of innovations are not widely understood when they are first explored. This aggravates agency problems in financing innovative projects, increasing the cost of capital. Policymakers, keen to stimulate innovation, are exploring a number of ways of facilitating capital-raising by innovative firms.

July 16 2018

Pages