Agency Costs, Voting Divergence, and Corporate Governance: A Qualitative Synthesis of Dual-Class Stock and Sunset Clause Mechanisms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70142/ijbge.v3i2.455Keywords:
Dual-class shares, Agency costs, Voting divergence, Corporate governance, Sunset clausesAbstract
This qualitative literature review synthesizes contemporary research on how dual-class share structures shape agency costs, voting divergence, and corporate governance outcomes. The review finds that disproportionate voting rights increase managerial entrenchment risks and weaken shareholder oversight, thereby amplifying agency costs across diverse institutional settings. However, governance safeguards particularly time bound and event-based sunset clauses emerge as effective mechanisms for moderating the long-term risks of control disproportionality. While dual class firms may benefit from strategic insulation that fosters innovation and long-term value creation, the absence of sunset provisions is consistently associated with reduced firm valuation, diminished accountability, and persistent divergence between control and ownership. Overall, this synthesis highlights that dual-class structures are not universally harmful, but their sustainability depends on the presence of robust governance constraints designed to restore alignment over time.
References
Aggarwal, D., et al. (2022). The rise of dual-class stock IPOs. Journal of Financial Economics, 144, 122–153.
Ashton, D. C. (1994). Revisiting dual-class stock. St. John’s Law Review, 68, 863–942.
Baulkaran, V. (2014). Management entrenchment and the valuation discount of dual-class firms. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 54, 70–81.
Bebchuk, L. A., & Kastiel, K. (2017). The perils of perpetual dual-class stock. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165(3), 723–791.
Bebchuk, L. A., & Kastiel, K. (2017). The untenable case for perpetual dual-class stock. Virginia Law Review, 103, 585–631.
Bennett, B., Stulz, R. M., & Wang, Z. (2023). Does greater public scrutiny hurt a firm’s performance? ECGI Working Paper No. 873.
Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2015). On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews. Journal of Information Technology, 30(2), 161–173.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.26
Brown, A. (2024–2025). The dual class dilemma and the sunset-clause solution. Harvard Business Law Review, 15.
CII (Council of Institutional Investors). (2019). Council of Institutional Investors says Lyft’s planned dual-class structure is harmful to investors.
Collingwood, H. (2001). The earnings game: Everyone plays, nobody wins. Harvard Business Review.
Cremers, M., Lauterbach, B., & Pajuste, A. (2018). The life-cycle of dual class firm valuations. ECGI Working Paper No. 550.
Cumming, D., Hou, W., & Lee, E. (2021). Do sunset provisions matter? Evidence from dual-class firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 68, 101947.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101947
Fisch, J. E., & Davidoff Solomon, S. (2019). The problem of sunsets. Boston University Law Review, 99, 1057–1101.
Fisch, J. E., & Solomon, S. D. (2023). Dual class stock. ECGI Working Paper No. 715.
Ghezzi, F., Mosca, C., & Passador, M. L. (2022). Rereading the “one share, one vote” principle: Is it also a matter of competition? University of Chicago Business Law Review, 1, 157–158.
Hufford, A. (2018). Zynga moves to single-class share structure. The Wall Street Journal.
Jordan, B. D., Kim, S., & Liu, M. H. (2016). Growth opportunities, short-term market pressure, and dual-class share structure. Journal of Corporate Finance, 41, 304–328.
Kusnanto, E. (2022). Performance Measurement Based on Balance Scorecard Perspective of Sustainable Leadership, Corporate Governance and Human Capital in Banking Industry. International Journal of Contemporary Accounting, 4(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.25105/ijca.v4i1.13916
Masulis, R. W., Wang, C., & Xie, F. (2009). Agency problems at dual-class companies. Journal of Finance, 64(4), 1697–1727.
Muhammad Rizal, Farah Qalbia, & Ngadi Permana. (2024). Hubungan Antara Big Baths, Tata Kelola Perusahaan, dan Asimetri Informasi Terhadap Biaya Audit. Jurnal Visi Manajemen, 10(2), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.56910/jvm.v10i2.524
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
Rappaport, A. (2005). The economics of short-term performance obsession. Financial Analysts Journal, 61, 65–65.
Reddy, B. (2022). The UK’s dual–class shares reforms – failing to throw off the shackles. Oxford Business Law Blog.
Sappideen, R. (2011). Focusing on corporate short termism. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 412–415.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Sonnenfeld, J., & Tian, S. (2024). Re-thinking the hostility towards dual-class share structures: When dual-class shares work better. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.
Suri, H. (2020). Ethical considerations of conducting systematic reviews in qualitative research. Qualitative Research Journal, 20(3), 317–329.
https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-03-2020-0035
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Valentine, D. (2024). How dual-class shares will help London attract tech IPOs. City AM.
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112.
