Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Delaware corporate jurisprudence has long recognized the utility ' and upheld the validity ' of defensive measures implemented in response to, or in anticipation of, hostile takeover threats. The overwhelming majority of the decisions in jurisprudence generally arise in the context of contests for control of publicly traded companies. Not surprisingly, attacks from the perceived raider typically assail the self-interest and self-dealing of the board of directors and management of the target, alleging that the defensive measures adopted are more intended to entrench and enrich management than they are reasonably crafted to accomplish the defensive strategy proffered as justification.
The courts have sought to create a level playing field for such disputes, emphasizing that “a corporation does not have unbridled discretion to defeat any perceived threat.” Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A. 2d 946, 955 (Del. 1985). Defensive measures must be reasonable in relation to the threat posed and cannot have as their sole or primary purpose the entrenchment of management. Id. However, what happens when the majority shareholders interest is so large as to make entrenchment and self-interest an academic issue? How far can the majority shareholders of a closely held company go to repel, and further insulate their company from, the perceived threat of a predatory minority stakeholder? By what standard will the majority shareholder's conduct be measured? Will the business judgment rule apply, or will entire fairness be required in defense of the measures implemented by the majority?
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.