Abstract
We study the decisions by targets in private equity and MBO transactions whether to actively shop executed merger agreements prior to shareholder approval. Specifically, targets can negotiate for a go-shop clause, which permits the solicitation of offers from other would-be acquirors during the go-shop window and, in certain circumstances, lowers the termination fee paid by the target in the event of a competing bid. We find that the decision to retain the option to shop is predicted by various firm attributes, including larger size, more fragmented ownership, and various characteristics of the firms' legal advisory team and procedures. We find that go-shops are not a free option; they result in a lower initial acquisition premium and that reduction is not offset by gains associated with new competing offers. The over-use of go-shops reflects excessive concerns about litigation risks, possibly resulting from lawyers' conflicts of interest in advising targets.