Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
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. …
Section 14(E) Of The Williams Act And The Rule 10b-5 Comparisons, Mark J. Loewenstein
Section 14(E) Of The Williams Act And The Rule 10b-5 Comparisons, Mark J. Loewenstein
Publications
The passage of the Williams Act in 1968 added a set of provisions to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to govern tender offers. In this article, Professor Loewenstein examines the antifraud provision of the Williams Act, codified as section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the development of decisional law under it. After discussing the propriety of inferring a private cause of action from section 14(e), Professor Loewenstein argues that the judiciary's reliance on rule 10b-5 precedents to set the bounds of the 14(e) cause of action is unwarranted. He concludes: 1) that scienter should not …
Soft Information: The Sec's Former Exogenous Zone, Ted J. Fiflis
Soft Information: The Sec's Former Exogenous Zone, Ted J. Fiflis
Publications
No abstract provided.