Law Commons^™

Delaware Court Of Chancery: Change, Continuity – And Competition, John C. Coffee Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

For Delaware, it is the best of times and the worst of times. The institutional prestige of the Delaware Court of Chancery has never been higher. Under the leadership of Chancellors Allen, Chandler and Strine, the court has converted many (and possibly most) of the academics, who once tended to be skeptical of Delaware. Academics and practitioners alike have been impressed by both the depth and thoughtfulness of the court of chancery's decisions and the hardworking style of its vice chancellors (who regularly seem able to turn out lengthy decisions in days that would take many federal circuit courts months …

Talking Governance: Board-Shareowner Communications On Executive Compensation, Stephen Davis, Stephen Alogna

Ira M. Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership

Advantages stemming from board-shareowner communications on governance and executive pay outweigh the potential risks and costs of such dialogue. Regulation FD in the US should be seen as a caution rather than a barrier to such communication. Prompted by universal adoption of advisory ‘say on pay’ resolutions, UK companies have moved to integrate regular engagement with domestic investors into the annual process of framing corporate remuneration policies. Most US companies have not fully endeavored to engage their shareowners in the same manner, but some—motivated sometimes by crises—are experimenting with various models of dialogue. Companies can best manage effective engagement when …

Corporate Law: What Is The Impact Of New Ali Proposals On Shareholder Litigation, John C. Coffee Jr., Michael P. Dooley

Faculty Scholarship

When the American Law Institute's Corporate Governance Project meets this month, one of the most hotly debated agenda items is likely to be its new rules governing shareholder litigation, which are now up for final approval.

The proposed change means that corporate boards will now have to prove in court that a decision to dismiss a shareholder claim alleging self-dealing was in the corporation's best interest. In addition, the requirement for a formal "demand" on the board by shareholders will be uniform, rather than subject to excuse, as it is under Delaware law and in the majority of states.

Drafters …

Bondholder Coercion: The Problem Of Constrained Choice In Debt Tender Offers And Recapitalizations, John C. Coffee Jr., William A. Klein

Faculty Scholarship

The past decade saw the flourishing of risky, high-yield corporate debt, often called "junk" bonds. Too many companies took on too much debt, and the chickens are now coming home to roost as these bonds have begun to default with increasing frequency.The magnitude of the problem is potentially enormous; by one estimate, $318 billion of debt has either defaulted already or trades at yields indicating the market's skepticism that it will be repaid on maturity.

Facing the prospect of default, corporate issuers are seeking to restructure or recapitalize their financial structures at a correspondingly increased pace. The market force driving …

The Unfaithful Champion: The Plaintiff As Monitor In Shareholder Litigation, John C. Coffee Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

When the legal history of the 1970's is written, it will note a significant shift in the way courts perceived shareholder litigation. Only a generation ago, the Supreme Court described the derivative action as "the chief regulator of corporate management." Even into the 1960's, those issues involving shareholder litigation that percolated up to the Supreme Court were typically resolved so as to extend the availability of a litigation remedy by removing arbitrary or overbroad barriers to the plaintiff.

The Survival Of The Derivative Suit: An Evaluation And A Proposal For Legislative Reform, John C. Coffee Jr., Donald E. Schwartz

Faculty Scholarship

The shareholder derivative suit today faces extinction. Long considered the "chief regulator of corporate management," and a recognized form of litigation in American courts at least since 1855, it now confronts the second great challenge of its history. Thirty-odd years ago, commentators foresaw the derivative suit's demise when state legislatures began adopting security-for-expenses statutes to curb the abuses of "strike suit" litigation. These reports of its death proved exaggerated, however, as plaintiffs discovered various tactics by which to outflank these statutes. As a result, by the late 1960's, the crisis was past, and a revival in the action's popularity was …