Law Commons^™

Target Litigation, Michael Rosenzweig

Michigan Law Review

In Part I, I explore the motives of litigious target managers. I briefly examine the takeover defense literature and empirical evidence regarding the frequency of target litigation, both of which indicate that target managers usually sue bidders in order to defeat unwanted takeover attempts. I also suggest that judicial reactions to target lawsuits largely confirm this hypothesis.

I then discuss, in Part II, target management's conflict of interest in control contests and the particular strategic considerations that lead target managers to sue hostile bidders. I argue that target litigation is peculiarly likely to be frivolous and, based on a study …

Suing In The Right Of The Corporation: A Commentary And Proposal For Legislative Reform, Lawrence A. Larose

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article is premised on the belief that the derivative action is uniquely susceptible to strike suit litigation-that is, actions with little or no substantive merit but pursued to exploit the nuisance value inherent in litigation. Although there is historic support for the notion of "pernicious and vexing" derivative litigation, some modern evidence suggests that the vast majority of publicly held companies experience no derivative litigation. Commentators, however, have questioned both the validity of the modern evidence and the conclusions derived from it. Despite these criticisms, observers of the present vitality of the derivative action, far from characterizing it as …

Lawyers And Children: Wisdom And Legitimacy In Family Policy, Carl E. Schneider

Michigan Law Review

A Review of In the Interest of Children: Advocacy, Law Reform, and Public Policy by Robert H. Mnookin, Robert A. Burt, David L. Chambers, Michael S. Wald, Stephen D. Sugarman, Franklin E. Zimring, and Rayman L. Solomon

Proposals To Amend Rule 68- Time To Abandon Ship, Stephen B. Burbank

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

It is no surprise that, having included "facilitating the settlement of the case" as one of the objectives of pretrial conferences in the 1983 amendments to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Advisory Committee has turned its attention to Rule 68. The Rule was intended to provide an incentive to settle by requiring that a prevailing claimant who has declined a more favorable offer of judgment pay post-offer "costs." But, in the Advisory Committee's view, Rule 68 has proved ineffective. The concern, apparently, is not that too few civil cases filed in federal court are settled-less …