Law Commons^™

What Corporate Veil?, Joshua C. Macey

Michigan Law Review

Review of Adam Winkler's We the Corporations: How American Business Won Their Civil Rights.

Enforceability Of Mandatory Arbitration Clauses For Shareholder-Corporation Disputes, Garry D. Hartlieb

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

Investor litigation is an increasingly vexatious field of law. Nearly every time a significant change of control or corporate ownership occurs, plaintiffs’ attorneys file standardized complaints to set in motion class action suits. Ultimately, the settlements shareholders receive fail to achieve the practical effects that parties on both sides desire. Shareholders may receive pennies on the dollar of what they allege was lost by corporate wrongdoing, and, in some cases, shareholders may not receive monetary recovery as the settlement requires only that the corporation to make changes to its governing documents. These suits distract directors and management from the core …

Hobby Lobby And The Pathology Of Citizens United, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Four years ago, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that for-profit corporations possess a First Amendment right to make independent campaign expenditures. In so doing, the United States Supreme Court invited speculation that such corporations might possess other First Amendment rights as well. The petitioners in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius are now arguing that for-profit corporations are among the intended beneficiaries of the Free Exercise Clause and, along with the respondents in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, that they also qualify as “persons” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Neither suggestion follows inexorably from Citizens United, …

Considerations For Private Equity Firms When Utilizing Chapter 11 New Value Deals, Alexandra Wilde

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

The new value exception to the Chapter 11 absolute priority rule provides a narrow avenue for equity holders to retain an equity interest in a reorganized company over the objections of senior creditors and interest holders. With the increasing number of Chapter 11 reorganization filings by private equity owned companies, private equity firms may be interested in exploring ways to retain their equity ownership in the debtor company. This Note explores the unique implications a private equity firm may encounter when attempting to utilize the new value exception as a last resort to maintain ownership in a debtor company. Part …

Citizens United And The Corporate Form, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

In Citizens United vs. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down a Federal statute banning direct corporate expenditures on political campaigns. The decision has been widely criticized and praised as a matter of First Amendment law. But it is also interesting as another step in the evolution of our legal views of the corporation. This article argues that by viewing Citizens United through the prism of theories about the corporate form, it is possible to see that the majority and the dissent departed from previous Supreme Court jurisprudence on the First Amendment rights of corporations. It is also possible to then …

Reflections On Section 5 Of The Ftc Act And The Ftc's Case Against Intel, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

The Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC’s”) unprecedented enforcement action against Intel raises profound issues concerning the scope of the FTC’s powers to give a construction to Section 5 of the FTC Act that goes beyond the substantive reach of the Sherman Act. While I have urged the FTC to assert such independence from the Sherman Act, this is the wrong case to make a break. Indeed, if anything, Intel poses a risk of seriously setting back the development of an independent Section 5 power by provoking a hostile appellate court to rebuke the FTC’s effort and cabin the FTC’s powers in …

Citizens United And The Corporate Form, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

In Citizens United vs. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down a Federal statute banning direct corporate expenditures on political campaigns. The decision has been widely criticized and praised as a matter of First Amendment law. But it is also interesting as another step in the evolution of our legal views of the corporation. This Article argues that by viewing Citizens Unitedthrough the prism of theories about the corporate form, it is possible to see that the majority and the dissent departed from previous Supreme Court jurisprudence on the First Amendment rights of corporations. It is also possible to then predict …

Stoneridge Investment Partners V. Scientific-Atlanta: The Political Economy Of Securities Class Action Reform, Adam C. Pritchard

Articles

I begin in Part II by explaining the wrong turn that the Court took in Basic. The Basic Court misunderstood the function of the reliance element and its relation to the question of damages. As a result, the securities class action regime established in Basic threatens draconian sanctions with limited deterrent benefit. Part III then summarizes the cases leading up to Stoneridge and analyzes the Court's reasoning in that case. In Stoneridge, like the decisions interpreting the reliance requirement of Rule 10b-5 that came before it, the Court emphasized policy implications. Sometimes policy implications are invoked to broaden the reach …

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 …

Protecting Nonshareholder Interests In The Market For Corporate Control: A Role For State Takeover Statutes, Frank J. Garcia

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Note describes a phenomenon of modern corporate activity first identified over fifty years ago as the "separation of ownership and control." This separation gives rise to the need for a governing corporate norm; recognizing the normative aspect of this phenomenon has direct implications for the takeover debate.

Part II analyzes the problem of a target board's fiduciary duty as the modern version of the fundamental normative issue of corporate law. It argues that the norm of shareholder wealth maximization, assumed as the starting point by those most in favor of an active and minimally regulated control …

Corporations And Society: Power And Responsibility, Sara Anne Engle

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Corporations and Society: Power and Responsibility edited by Warren J. Samuels and Arthur S. Miller

Free Speech And Corporate Freedom: A Comment On First National Bank Of Boston V. Bellotti, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

The corporation was born in chains but is everywhere free. That freedom was recently affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti. In Bellotti, the Court overturned a Massachusetts criminal statute forbidding banks and business corporations to make expenditures intended to influence referenda concerning issues not "materially affecting" the corporation's "property, business, or assets." In doing so, the Court confirmed its discovery that commercial speech is not unprotected by the first amendment and announced a novel doctrine that corporate speech is not unprotected by the first amendment. Although several years have …

Second Generation State Takeover Legislation: Maryland Takes A New Tack, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the approach recently adopted by the Maryland legislature in special session one year after the Supreme Court's decision in MITE. Maryland has departed radically from the regulatory approach of first generation statutes; however, this Note argues that the statute has failed to escape the constitutional infirmities of its predecessors. Part I outlines the various mechanisms that regulate acquisition of corporate control: the federal tender offer regulatory mechanism known as the Williams Act, state takeover legislation such as the Illinois statute invalidated in MITE, and the new Maryland statute. Part II analyzes the debate concerning the …

The Impact If Howard Johnson On The Labor Obligations Of Successor Employer, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note assesses the impact of Howard Johnson on the labor-law obligations of successor employers. Part I analyzes the prior case law; part II critiques the reasoning of the Howard Johnson opinion; part III considers the merits of a new approach to the successorship problem, suggested in a footnote in Howard Johnson.

United States V. Falstaff Brewing Corporation: Potential Competition Re-Examined, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note will examine and criticize the perceived potential competition doctrine suggested by the Court. Then, it will discuss the questions raised in the concurrences concerning the use of subjective evidence and the role of incipient competitive effects. Finally, an alternative approach that focuses on the acquisition of or the possibility of acquiring small, "toehold" firms will be proposed.

Contract Rights And The Successor Employer: The Impact Of Burns Security, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note will only briefly discuss the implications of Burns for NLRB proceedings. Instead, the focus will be on the impact of Burns on actions to compel arbitration under section 301. Is the rationale of Burns inconsistent with the rule established in Wiley for section 301 actions? If it does not undermine Wiley, does Burns indicate when employers will be deemed successors in future actions under section 301 to compel arbitration? Before examining these questions, however, it is necessary to consider the decisions of Wiley and Burns.