Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, 2014 WL 714697 (Feb. 26, 2014) (2)

Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troiceは,1998年証券訴訟統一基準法(SLUSA: Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998)の適用の有無を争う合衆国最高裁判所の判決です。判決の原文を挙げます。


本件は,1998年証券訴訟統一基準法(SLUSA: Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998)の適用の有無を争うものです。そして,原告が適用を否定する主張をして被告が,適用を主張しています。CDに対して,1998年証券訴訟統一基準法が適用となるのかという点も,興味深い論点ですが,これについては評釈がでると思うので,とりあえずそれ以外に思いついた点を書きます。


第二に,本件において,なぜ原告が,州裁判所に訴えを提起したかという理由です。どこかで既に解説があるのかもしれませんが,Central Bank判決およびJanus判決等の二次的行為者について,連邦裁判所が,流通市場での証券の取得に対する民事責任を認めていないからでしょうか。

Michael P. Dooley (1939–2014)

Michael P. Dooley教授は,University of Virginia Law Schoolの会社法教授であり,また,長らくModel Business Corporation ActのOfficial Reporterでした。


The power to hold to account is the power to interfere and, ultimately, the power to decide. If stockholders are given too easy access to courts, the effect is to transfer decisionmaking power from the board to the stockholders or, more realistically, to one or few stockholders whose interests may not coincide with those of the larger body of stockholders. By limiting judicial review of board decisions, the business judgment rule preserves the statutory scheme of centralizing authority in the board of directors. In doing so, it also preserves the value of centralized decisionmaking for the stockholders and protects them against unwarranted interference in that process by one of their number. Although it is customary to think of the business judgment rule as protecting directors from stockholders, it ultimately serves the more important function of protecting stockholders from themselves.1



via Stephen M. Bainbridge, Henry Manne, Gordon Smith

  1. Michael P. Dooley & E. Norman Veasey, The Role of the Board in Derivative Litigation: Delaware Law and the Current ALI Proposals Compared, 44 Bus. Law. 503, 522 (1989). []


このデラウェア州一般会社法203条に関するGuhan Subramanian教授の講演は,Francis G. Pileggiを記念して毎年行われているものです(The 29th Annual Francis G. Pileggi Distinguished Lecture in Law)。この講演のビデオを試聴することができます。

講演は,Delaware Journal of Corporate Lawに掲載されますが,既にドラフトがSSRNにアップロードされています。

DGCL 203の合憲性への疑問と今後の対応について議論しています。

via HLS



  1. 公開買者の非公開会社での経営判断原則の適応
  2. 非買収会社の対応(会社売却時に買収者の候補を一社に絞ることとマーケット・チェックおよびフェアネス・オピニオン)
  3. 裁判管轄(定款,付属定款と契約)
  4. Material adverse effects
  5. 取締役による(優先株主でなく)株主の利益保護という原則

via Akin Gump



At the recent Securities Regulation Institute, Keith Higgins, the head of the SEC Division of Corporation Finance, indicated that the SEC staff will be looking for less detailed disclosure in the S–1 regarding a company’s historical practice and grant by grant valuation description for establishing the fair value of the company’s common stock in connection with stock-based compensation in IPO registration statements.

Currently, companies provide lengthy discussions of how stock was valued and ultimately the difference between the estimated IPO price and the historical fair value of stock at various points in time as private companies. …

via Davis Polk


  1. Freedman v. Adams

  2. SIGA Technologies v. PharmAthene

  3. Norton v. K-Sea Transportation

  4. In re: Wayport, Inc. Litigation

  5. Rich v. Chong

  6. Puda Coal

  7. In re: China Agritech, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation

  8. In Re MFW Shareholders Litigation

  9. Klaassen v. Allegro Dev. Corp. et al.

  10. Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Hayes, et al.

  11. In re Primedia, Inc. Shareholders Litigation

  12. Silverberg v. Gold


via Francis G.X. Pileggi and Kevin F. Brady