Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Fairness Opinions And Spac Reform, Andrew F. Tuch
Fairness Opinions And Spac Reform, Andrew F. Tuch
Scholarship@WashULaw
Under the emerging regulatory framework for special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), mergers of SPACs, known as de-SPACs, must be “fair” to public (or unaffiliated) SPAC shareholders, and transaction participants face heightened liability risk for disclosure errors. This framework is a product of the SEC’s reform proposal for SPACs (SPAC Reform Proposal) and recent decisions of the Delaware Court of Chancery. In this environment, third-party fairness opinions have been regarded as a de facto requirement for de-SPACs.
Managing Management Buyouts: A Us-Uk Comparative Analysis, Andrew F. Tuch
Managing Management Buyouts: A Us-Uk Comparative Analysis, Andrew F. Tuch
Scholarship@WashULaw
This chapter comparatively assesses U.S. and U.K. law governing management buyouts (MBOs), focusing on the duties of directors and officers in these systems. The analysis casts doubt on persistent but mistaken perceptions about U.S. and U.K. corporate fiduciary duties for self-dealing. The U.K. no-conflict rule is seen as strict, the U.S. fairness rule as flexible and pragmatic. As the analysis for MBOs demonstrates, these fiduciary rules operate similarly, tasking neutral or disinterested directors with policing self-dealing, enabling commercially sensitive responses to conflicts of interest. The analysis also reveals stronger formal private enforcement of corporate law and more robust disclosure rules …
Fiduciary Principles In Banking Law, Andrew F. Tuch
Fiduciary Principles In Banking Law, Andrew F. Tuch
Scholarship@WashULaw
When are banks fiduciaries of their customers and clients? This question is of more than theoretical interest given the organizational structure of modern financial institutions and the broad-ranging functions they perform. In this chapter of the Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law, I canvass fiduciary principles in banking law. I consider when fiduciary duties exist and what they require, the range of remedies available for breach, and the various techniques banks use to exclude or modify fiduciary duties. One puzzling feature of the legal landscape is that clients bring actions less often than banks’ size and conduct might suggest, which contributes …
Reassessing Self-Dealing: Between No Conflict And Fairness, Andrew F. Tuch
Reassessing Self-Dealing: Between No Conflict And Fairness, Andrew F. Tuch
Scholarship@WashULaw
Scholars have long disagreed on which of two rules is more effective when a fiduciary engages in self-dealing. Some defend the “strict” no-conflict rule, which categorically bans self-dealing. Others prefer the “flexible” and “pragmatic” fairness rule, which allows self-dealing if it is fair to beneficiaries. The centrality of this debate cannot be overstated: corporate law as a field is fundamentally concerned with self-dealing by fiduciaries. Yet a lack of firm data means that this debate has dragged on for decades, with no end in sight. This article makes a simple but powerful point: the entire debate is somewhat misguided because, …
The Foundations Of Anglo-American Corporate Fiduciary Law, Andrew F. Tuch
The Foundations Of Anglo-American Corporate Fiduciary Law, Andrew F. Tuch
Scholarship@WashULaw
How does legal doctrine form, why does it change, and why do doctrines with a common starting point, in legal systems with a shared heritage, diverge? This essay reviews and critiques a book by David Kershaw that addresses these questions. The book charts the evolution of corporate fiduciary law in the United Kingdom and United States and, comparing the two systems, explains how and why the respective legal regimes evolved as they did. Kershaw weighs in on contested U.S. scholarly debates, confronting the common claim that doctrinal change is less the product of internal logic or strict precedent than a …