Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Legislation

Michigan Law Review

Shareholders

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

A Rule Unvanquished: The New Value Exception To The Absolute Priority Rule, Clifford S. Harris Aug 1991

A Rule Unvanquished: The New Value Exception To The Absolute Priority Rule, Clifford S. Harris

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines whether the new value exception remains part of the revised Bankruptcy Code. Part I discusses the background of the new value exception. Part II traces the development of the conflict concerning the survival of the new value exception subsequent to the adoption of the Code. It then discusses the Supreme Court's opinions in Mid/antic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and its progeny, which established the methodology for determining the impact of the revised Bankruptcy Code on preexisting bankruptcy law. Based on an analysis of the Midlantic doctrine, Part II concludes that Congress did …


Misreading The Williams Act, Lyman Johnson, David Millon Jun 1989

Misreading The Williams Act, Lyman Johnson, David Millon

Michigan Law Review

This Article examines the emerging controversy over preemption of the most potent of recent antitakeover laws, the so-called business combination statutes recently passed by Delaware, New York, and other states, and Pennsylvania's director-approval statute. After examining the strategy employed by the states to shield these statutes from constitutional attack, we consider the issues raised by the preemption claim and the arguments currently being advanced by the SEC and others in favor of preemption. Resolving the preemption controversy requires inquiry into the original meaning and objectives of the Williams Act. We argue that this should involve attention not only to the …


Missing The Point About State Takeover Statutes, Lyman Johnson, David Millon Feb 1989

Missing The Point About State Takeover Statutes, Lyman Johnson, David Millon

Michigan Law Review

In a recent article in this journal, Professor Richard Booth offers an extended appraisal of state legislation regulating hostile corporate takeovers. We think Booth's article requires comment for two reasons. The first reason is perhaps more obvious, though less interesting from our point of view. To be blunt, "unfairness" to shareholders due to coercion arising out of two-tier or partial offers simply does not occur with enough frequency to warrant a sixty-seven-page article in a major law review. According to recent congressional testimony by SEC Commissioner Cox, from 1982 to 1986 the number of two-tier offers declined from 18% of …


Corporations-Class Actions Under Section 16(B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934-Federal Rule 23, Richard. J. Archer Nov 1947

Corporations-Class Actions Under Section 16(B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934-Federal Rule 23, Richard. J. Archer

Michigan Law Review

Pursuant to section 16 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 an action was commenced by a shareholder to recover for the corporation profits realized by another shareholder through "short swing" transactions in securities of the corporation, the estimated profits being $50,770. Plaintiff's attorney filed an affidavit stating the reasons why recovery of the full amount was doubtful and made application for , leave to settle and compromise for $5,000. The corporation's attorney agreed to this proposal. Held, the merits of the compromise cannot be considered until in conformance with Rule 23 ( c), actual notice of the …


Stock Dividends As Income, Robert E. More Jan 1918

Stock Dividends As Income, Robert E. More

Michigan Law Review

In the case of Towne v. Eisner, the United States Supreme Court has recently held that under the Income Tax Law of 1913, the stock dividends received by a shareholder during the year 1914 could not be taxed upon their full par value, where the corporate surplus thus distributed all accrued prior to January I, 1913. The Treasury Department subsequently announced that the decision is not applicable to the Income Tax Law of 1916.1 It is the purpose of this article to review the case of Towvne v. Eisner,2 and then to discuss the soundness of the position taken by …