Bogle founded Valley Forge, Pennsylvania-based Vanguard in 1974. Investors attracted to its low fees helped the firm overtake American Funds, managed by Los Angeles-based Capital Group Inc., in 2008 as the biggest U.S. stock and bond fund manager. Vanguard has $4.9 trillion in assets under management.
The Delaware Court of Chancery, in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg, C.A. No. 2017-0931-JTL (Del. Ch. Dec. 19, 2018), has declared “ineffective and invalid” provisions in three corporations’ certificates of incorporation that purported “to require any claim under the Securities Act of 1933 to be brought in federal court” (the “Federal Forum Provisions”).
Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court, by Vice Chancellor Laster, ruled that “[t]he constitutive documents of a Delaware corporation cannot bind a plaintiff to a particular forum when the claim does not involve rights or relationships that were established by or under Delaware’s corporate law. In this case, the Federal Forum Provisions attempt to accomplish that feat. They are therefore ineffective and invalid.”
The factual record adequately supports the Court of Chancery’s determination, based on its application of precedent such as In re IBP, Inc. Shareholders Litigation and Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. v. Huntsman Corp., that Akorn had suffered a material adverse effect (“MAE”) under § 6.02(c) of the Merger Agreement that excused any obligation on Fresenius’s part to close. (footnotes omitted)
私は，ニューヨーク大学でWachtell Liptonの弁護士（David A. Katz氏とMark Gordon氏）による企業買収の講義を受講し，そこで幾つかのメモランダムが配られてから，Lipton氏のメモランダムを興味深く拝見してきました。本ブログでも，Lipton氏のメモランダムについて，度々言及しています。しかし，Lipton氏の執筆に係るメモランダムをすべて拝見したということではありませんでした。例えば，1988年11月3日の “The Interco Case” と題するメモランダムは，このPDFを見つけるまで拝見することができませんでした。このメモランダムは，Jeffrey N. Gordon, Corporations, Markets, and Courts, 91 Colum. L. Rev. 1931, 1959 n.95 (1991)，Mark J. Roe, Delaware’s Competition, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 588, 626 (2003)などの論文で引用されています。今回，このメモランダムも含めて，Lipton氏の様々なメモランダムを読むことができるということで，紹介をいたします。デラウェア州会社法の歴史の実務の側面を垣間見ることができました。
We find that the description of Morrison as a “steamroller” substantially ending litigation against foreign issuers is a myth. Instead, we find that Morrison did not substantially change the type of litigation brought against foreign issuers, which both before and after Morrison focused on foreign issuers with a U.S. listing and substantial U.S. trading volume. While dismissal rates rose post-Morrison we find no evidence that this is related to the decision. Settlement amounts and attorneys’ fees actually rose post-Morrison.
We contend that courts should look at the market price of the securities of a target company whose shares are being valued, unadjusted for the news of the merger, rather than at the deal price that was reached by the parties in the transaction.
Unadjusted market price has two distinct advantages over deal price. First, the unadjusted market price automatically subtracts the target firm’s share of the synergy gains and agency cost reductions impounded in the deal price. This is appropriate to do because dissenting shareholders in appraisal proceedings are not entitled to these increments of value which are supplied by the bidder. Second, the unadjusted market price is unaffected by any flaws in the deal process that led to the ultimate merger agreement. Recently, commentators have contended that deal prices in merger transactions should be ignored in appraisal cases where there are flaws in the process that led to the sale.