「開示制度が必要かについて研究しています」というと，大半の場合，必要に決まっているじゃないかという反応が返ってくるのですが，行き過ぎた開示制度に疑義を示すビデオを見つけました。表題の書籍More Than You Wanted to Know: The Failure of Mandated Disclosureに関するプロモーションの一環のようです。当該書籍は，2014年4月13日発売で，amazon.co.jpやamazon.comから購入できます。
〔2014年3月19日追記〕M&A Law Prof Blogに次の指摘があります。参考になると思います。
But here’s a wrinkle…footnote 14. In footnote 14, the Supreme Court notes that MFW could not have decided on the pleadings and would have survived a motion to dismiss even under the new standard. The pleadings, the court noted were sufficient to require discovery on all the new prerequisiting in the application of the standard…
Ultimately we’ll see to what degree footnote 14 matters. But, it does seem a little disconcerting that Strine’s project to provide a pathway to early dismissal of these kinds of cases might just move the locus of the argument to the functioning of the special committee.
Sure, that’s obviously better, but it’s not yet clear that MFW and footnote 14 will dramatically reduce incentives to bring these cases. Perhaps we will just be battling the same fight on new ground. Of course, the Chancery Court is likely to want to find ways to rule on the pleadings and my guess is that now that Chief Justice Strine is in a place to influence how the MFW standard is going to roll out that he won’t be looking to increase incentives for plaintiffs to bring these cases.
The Verified Consolidated Class Action Complaint would have survived a motion to dismiss under this new standard. First, the complaint alleged that Perelman’s offer “value[d] the company at just four times” MFW’s profits per share and “five times 2010 pre-tax cash flow,” and that these ratios were “well below” those calculated for recent similar transactions. Second, the complaint alleged that the final Merger price was two dollars per share lower than the trading price only about two months earlier. Third, the complaint alleged particularized facts indicating that MWF’s share price was depressed at the times of Perelman’s offer and the Merger announcement due to short-term factors such as MFW’s acquisition of other entities and Standard & Poor’s downgrading of the United States’ creditworthiness. Fourth, the complaint alleged that commentators viewed both Perelman’s initial \$24 per share offer and the final \$25 per share Merger price as being surprisingly low. These allegations about the sufficiency of the price call into question the adequacy of the Special Committee’s negotiations, thereby necessitating discovery on all of the new prerequisites to the application of the business judgment rule.