IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v25y2009i1p107-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Going-Private Decisions and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: A Cross-Country Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Talley

Abstract

This article investigates whether the passage and the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) drove firms out of the public capital market. To control for other factors affecting exit decisions, we examine the post-SOX change in the propensity of American public targets to be bought by private acquirers rather than public ones with the corresponding change for foreign public targets, which were outside the purview of SOX. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that SOX induced small firms to exit the public capital market during the year following its enactment. In contrast, SOX appears to have had little effect on the going-private propensities of larger firms. (JEL G30, G34, G38, K22) The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Yale University. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Talley, 2009. "Going-Private Decisions and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: A Cross-Country Analysis," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 107-133, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:25:y:2009:i:1:p:107-133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jleo/ewn019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paolo Polidori & Désirée Teobaldelli, 2018. "Corporate criminal liability and optimal firm behavior: internal monitoring versus managerial incentives," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 251-284, April.
    2. Pornsit Jiraporn & Pandej Chintrakarn & Shenghui Tong & Sirimon Treepongkaruna, 2018. "Does board independence substitute for external audit quality? Evidence from an exogenous regulatory shock," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 43(1), pages 27-41, February.
    3. Dharmapala, Dhammika & Khanna, Vikramaditya, 2016. "The Costs and Benefits of Mandatory Securities Regulation: Evidence from Market Reactions to the JOBS Act of 2012," Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting, now publishers, vol. 1(1), pages 139-186, April.
    4. Dhammika Dharmapala, 2016. "Estimating the Compliance Costs of Securities Regulation: A Bunching Analysis of Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404(b)," CESifo Working Paper Series 6180, CESifo.
    5. Chintrakarn, Pandej & Jiraporn, Pornsit & Treepongkaruna, Sirimon & Mook Lee, Sang, 2022. "The effect of board independence on dividend payouts: A quasi-natural experiment," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    6. Etienne Farvaque & Catherine Refait-Alexandre & Dhafer Saïdane, 2011. "Corporate disclosure: A review of its (direct and indirect) benefits and costs," International Economics, CEPII research center, issue 128, pages 5-31.
    7. Chindasombatcharoen, Pongsapak & Chatjuthamard, Pattanaporn & Jiraporn, Pornsit, 2023. "Corporate culture, cultural diversification, and independent directors: Evidence from earnings conference calls," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    8. Chatjuthamard, Pattanaporn & Jiraporn, Pornsit & Treepongkaruna, Sirimon, 2021. "How do independent directors view generalist vs. specialist CEOs? Evidence from an exogenous regulatory shock," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    9. Hans B. Christensen & Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2021. "Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 1176-1248, September.
    10. Pierpaolo Pattitoni & Barbara Petracci & Massimo Spisni, 2015. "“Hit and Run” and “Revolving Doors”: evidence from the Italian stock market," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 19(2), pages 285-301, May.
    11. Jiraporn, Pornsit & Jumreornvong, Seksak & Jiraporn, Napatsorn & Singh, Simran, 2016. "How do independent directors view powerful CEOs? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 268-274.
    12. Christian Leuz & Peter D. Wysocki, 2016. "The Economics of Disclosure and Financial Reporting Regulation: Evidence and Suggestions for Future Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 525-622, May.
    13. Ongsakul, Viput & Jiraporn, Pornsit, 2019. "How do independent directors view powerful executive risk-taking incentives? A quasi-natural experiment," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    14. Renneboog, Luc & Vansteenkiste, Cara, 2017. "Leveraged Buyouts : A Survey of the Literature," Other publications TiSEM 573ebdd5-a720-4110-8ed1-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Anastasia Cozarenco & Ariane Szafarz, 2016. "Microcredit in Industrialized Countries: Unexpected Consequences of Regulatory Loan Ceilings," Working Papers CEB 16-021, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G30 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - General
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • G38 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • K22 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Business and Securities Law

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:25:y:2009:i:1:p:107-133. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.