<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/05/mechanisms-of-board-turnover-evidence-from-backdating/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2026 11:32:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.9</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Mechanisms of Board Turnover: Evidence from Backdating</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/05/mechanisms-of-board-turnover-evidence-from-backdating/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mechanisms-of-board-turnover-evidence-from-backdating</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/05/mechanisms-of-board-turnover-evidence-from-backdating/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:47:09 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Academic Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boards of Directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Elections & Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Empirical Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Backdating]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Board turnover]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy access]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=21463?d=20150106094648EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In our paper, Mechanisms of Board Turnover: Evidence from Backdating, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we examine a set of events that involve observable corporate misdeeds: stock option backdating. These misdeeds were generally revealed within a narrow window of time, required the complicity of the board, and in many cases directors benefited [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by R. Christopher Small, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Monday, September 5, 2011 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;">The following post comes to us from <a href="http://www.lerner.udel.edu/faculty-staff/faculty/fred-bereskin" target="_blank">Frederick Bereskin</a> of the Department of Finance at the University of Delaware and <a href="http://www.simon.rochester.edu/faculty--research/faculty-directory/full-time-faculty-directory/clifford-w-smith/index.aspx" target="_blank">Clifford Smith</a>, Professor of Finance and Economics at the University of Rochester.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>In our paper, <strong><em>Mechanisms of Board Turnover: Evidence from Backdating</em></strong>, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we examine a set of events that involve observable corporate misdeeds: stock option backdating. These misdeeds were generally revealed within a narrow window of time, required the complicity of the board, and in many cases directors benefited directly through backdated grants. Examining board turnover associated with stock option backdating thus enables us to gain more insight about the mechanisms by which directors depart their boards. Although information that would allow us to identify each of these five steps is not publicly available, events that are typically available include the following: (1) whether a director resigns, (2) whether a director appears on the proxy as nominated for reelection, and (3) whether a director is reelected. Additionally, there are press releases that sometimes accompany these decisions, but these announcements must be interpreted with care. For example, when a director does not appear on the proxy, the board and/or nominating committee might have chosen not to renominate the individual for reelection or the director might have declined to stand for reelection (an event that is frequently disclosed, especially if driven by a director retirement policy). However, a director who will not be renominated often is permitted to announce that he or she has chosen to resign or not to seek reelection.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/05/mechanisms-of-board-turnover-evidence-from-backdating/#more-21463" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Mechanisms of Board Turnover: Evidence from Backdating">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/05/mechanisms-of-board-turnover-evidence-from-backdating/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
