Corporate governance best practice is to hold annual board elections (not staggered), yet staggered elections make for a pre-offer takeover defense mechanism. How should I view this contradiction?
Takeover offers/proxy fights are generally seen as bad because the management gets trashed, but if the proxy fight/activist investor is representing the shareholders, having a staggered board makes it harder for the shareholders to take care of what they think is bad. That’s why it’s seen as bad corporate governance.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.