Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Understanding The (Ir)Relevance Of Shareholder Votes On M&A Deals, Randall S. Thomas, James D. Cox, Tomas J. Mondino
Understanding The (Ir)Relevance Of Shareholder Votes On M&A Deals, Randall S. Thomas, James D. Cox, Tomas J. Mondino
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Has corporate law and its bundles of fiduciary obligations become irrelevant? Over the last thirty years, the American public corporation has undergone a profound metamorphosis, transforming itself from a business with dispersed ownership to one whose ownership is highly concentrated in the hands of sophisticated financial institutions. Corporate law has not been immutable to these changes so that current doctrine now accords to a shareholder vote two effects: first, the vote satisfies a statutory mandate that shareholders approve a deal, and second and significantly, the vote insulates the transaction and its actors from any claim of misconduct incident the approved …
A Pox On Both Your Houses, Suzanna Sherry
A Pox On Both Your Houses, Suzanna Sherry
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
As Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins celebrates its 75th anniversary, it is becoming more apparent that it is on a collision course with itself. The Court keeps trying – and failing – to sort out the tensions within the Erie doctrine and between it and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court’s latest Erie decision, Shady Grove, was yet another attempt to separate substance from procedure and navigate the strait between the Rules of Decision Act and the Rules Enabling Act. It was a disaster, in large part because of the internal incoherence of the Erie doctrine itself and …
Twombly And Iqbal Reconsidered, Brian T. Fitzpatrick
Twombly And Iqbal Reconsidered, Brian T. Fitzpatrick
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to permit judges to dismiss claims at the very outset of a case whenever they think the claims are implausible. The decisions have been extremely controversial, and they are already on track to become the most cited Supreme Court decisions of all time. Critics contend that the decisions are prime examples of the “conservative judicial activism” widely attributed to the Roberts Court. In particular, critics contend that the decisions circumvented the usual process for promulgating amendments to the Federal Rules …