Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Securities Law
Regulatory Competition And The Market For Corporate Law, Ofer Eldar, Lorenzo Magnolfi
Regulatory Competition And The Market For Corporate Law, Ofer Eldar, Lorenzo Magnolfi
Faculty Scholarship
This article develops an empirical model of firms’ choice of corporate laws under inertia. Delaware dominates the incorporation market, though recently Nevada, a state whose laws are highly protective of managers, has acquired a sizable market share. Using a novel database of incorporation decisions from 1995- 2013, we show that most firms dislike protectionist laws, such as anti-takeover statutes and liability protections for officers, and that Nevada’s rise is due to the preferences of small firms.Our estimates indicate that despite inertia, Delaware would lose significant market share and revenues if it adopted protectionist laws. Our findings support the hypothesis that …
Of Lollipops And Law -- A Proposal For A National Policy Concerning Tender Offer Defenses, Ted J. Fiflis
Of Lollipops And Law -- A Proposal For A National Policy Concerning Tender Offer Defenses, Ted J. Fiflis
Publications
Early last year, Mesa Petroleum Company made a tender offer for shares of Unocal Corporation in an effort to take over Unocal. Unocal responded by using the "lollipop" defense, which is a discriminatory issuer self-tender offer. Unocal's use of this defense resulted in huge economic losses to many of Unocal's small shareholders who were not knowledgeable about the ramifications of their participation or non-participation in the tender offer. The Delaware Supreme Court upheld Unocal's use of this defense as an appropriate exercise of business judgment. A federal district court in California refused to strike down the lollipop under federal law …
Tender Offer Litigation And State Law, Mark J. Loewenstein
Tender Offer Litigation And State Law, Mark J. Loewenstein
Publications
The recent spate of hostile takeover battles has focused attention and criticism on the federal securities laws. Most claims of defeated offerors and disappointed shareholders have been based on sections 14(e) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The United States Supreme Court, however, has limited such federal remedies and suggested that plaintiffs bring state-law actions for interference with a prospective economic advantage. Professor Loewenstein discusses this tort, which has not been used widely in this context, and reviews the tort's traditional elements, its formulation in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and its recent treatment by state courts. …