- 江頭憲治郎「裁判における株価の算定—日米比較をまじえて—」司法研修所論集122号36頁，60頁（2013）。 [↩]
Harvard University (13 faculty)
Columbia University (17 faculty, 76 votes)
New York University (18 faculty, 43 votes)
Yale University (10 faculty, 11 votes)
University of Chicago (10 faculty, 29 votes)
Stanford University (8 faculty, 50 votes)
University of California, Berkeley (11 faculty, 4 votes)
University of Pennsylvania (10 faculty, 4 votes)
Georgetown University (14 faculty, 29 votes)
University of Virginia (13 faculty, 26 votes)
On November 26, 2013, the Nasdaq Stock Market filed a proposal to amend its listing rules implementing Rule 10C-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, governing the independence of compensation committee members. Currently, Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(d)(2)(A) and IM-5605-6 employ a bright line test for independence that prohibits compensation committee members from accepting directly or indirectly any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fees from the company or any subsidiary subject to certain exceptions.
Based on the potential burden the bright line approach places on companies’ ability to recruit eligible directors, Nasdaq has proposed to replace this rule and its exceptions with a requirement that all compensation received from a company be considered in the independence determination. Separately, Nasdaq has also proposed some minor revisions to the affiliation prong of the compensation committee independence test under Rule 10C-1, which requires that consideration be given in independence determinations to whether a compensation committee member is affiliated with the issuer, a subsidiary of the issuer or an affiliate of a subsidiary of the issuer. All of these changes would align Nasdaq’s approach to compensation committee independence with that employed by the NYSE.
§ 259. Status, rights, liabilities, of constituent and surviving or resulting corporations following merger or consolidation.
(a) When any merger or consolidation shall have become effective under this chapter, … the separate existence of all the constituent corporations, or of all such constituent corporations except the one into which the other or others of such constituent corporations have been merged, as the case may be, shall cease and the constituent corporations shall become a new corporation, or be merged into 1 of such corporations, as the case may be, possessing all the rights, privileges, powers and franchises as well of a public as of a private nature, and being subject to all the restrictions, disabilities and duties of each of such corporations so merged or consolidated; and
all and singular, the rights, privileges, powers and franchises of each of said corporations, and all property, real, personal and mixed, and all debts due to any of said constituent corporations on whatever account, as well for stock subscriptions as all other things in action or belonging to each of such corporations shall be vested in the corporation surviving or resulting from such merger or consolidation; and
all property, rights, privileges, powers and franchises, and all and every other interest shall be thereafter as effectually the property of the surviving or resulting corporation as they were of the several and respective constituent corporations, and the title to any real estate vested by deed or otherwise, under the laws of this State, in any of such constituent corporations, shall not revert or be in any way impaired by reason of this chapter; but all rights of creditors and all liens upon any property of any of said constituent corporations shall be preserved unimpaired, and all debts, liabilities and duties of the respective constituent corporations shall thenceforth attach to said surviving or resulting corporation, and may be enforced against it to the same extent as if said debts, liabilities and duties had been incurred or contracted by it.
Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLLP, C.A. No. 7906-CS, 2013 WL 6037329 (Del. Ch. Nov. 15, 2013)は，同条の特権(privileges)には，弁護士とクライアントの秘匿特権も含まれるという点を判示した事案です。
関連する最近の判決として，MPEG LA L.L.C. v. Dell Global B.V., C.A. 7016-VCP (December 9, 2013)を挙げておきます。