附属定款中の強制仲裁条項

 米国で 附属定款の中に強制的な仲裁条項を置くということについて、議論が活発になっています。

 この議論は、比較法の検討としても興味深いです。また、比較法の論点に加えて、会社法や金商法の強行法規性の問題として捉えれば、より本格的な論文のテーマにもなりうるように思います。

 また、この議論は、Sciabacucchi v. SalzbergCyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fundの影響もあるようで、複眼的に捉えると米国の法制度の特徴が明らかになって面白いように思えます。

via SEC, Jay Clayton, Cooley, Alison Frankel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Allen & Overy, Cooley

附属定款と企業統治

デラウェア州最高裁判所のRidgely裁判官による講演です。

Since the Court’s decision in ATP Tour, a number of commentators have assumed that it applies equally to for-profit, stock corporations.76 The Delaware Supreme Court did not say that in ATP Tour, so this remains an open question. …

Several companies have adopted one-way fee-shifting bylaws in the wake of ATP Tour despite the current uncertainty surrounding their validity. …

Another category of bylaw generating discussion, but not yet litigation in Delaware, is a mandatory arbitration bylaw covering intra-corporate disputes that waives a shareholder’s right to a class action. Some commentators have concluded that a board has the unilateral power to do this after the Boilermakers decision. However, in Boilermakers, then-Chancellor Strine expressly noted that the bylaw at issue did not regulate whether the stockholder may file suit.

via Delaware Litigation Blog