This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Dead Hand and No Hand Pills: Precommitment Strategies in Corporate Law

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Stephen Bainbridge (University of California at Los Angeles)
Abstract

Corporations frequently, make use of precommitment strategies. Examples include such widely used devices as negative pledge covenants and change of control clauses in bond indentures fair price shark repellents, no shop and other exclusivity provisions , in merger agreements, mandatory indemnification bylaws, and so on. This paper argues that poison pills also can be understood as a form of precommitment, by which the board of directors commits to a policy, intended either to negotiate a high acquisition price or to maintain the corporation's independence.In Quickturn Design Sys., Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., the Delaware supreme court invalidated a no hand poison pill on grounds that a board of directors lacks authority to adopt such devices. In doing so, the court misinterpreted relevant Delaware law. It's unjustifiably called into question the validity of a host of corporate precominitment strategies. Finally, and perhaps most troublingly, it called into question the central tenet of Delaware corporate law; namely, the plenary authority of the board of directors.This article argues that the Delaware supreme court's decision was wrong both as a doctrinal and a policy matter. There simply is no firebreak between the sorts of board self disablement deemed invalid by Quickturn and the host of other precommitment strategies routinely used by corporate boards of directors. The Delaware supreme court's conclusion that the former are invalid for lack of statutory authority thus threatens to invalidate all of the latter. The article concludes by arguing that the Delaware supreme court should have analyzed the no hand pill under standard fiduciary d4ty principles rather than creating a new prophylactic ban on precommitment strategies.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=blewp
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics in its series Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series with number 1077.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 10 Feb 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cdl:oplwec:1077

Note: oai:cdlib1:blewp-1077
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Boalt Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720
Fax: (510) 642-3767
Email:
Web page: http://repositories.cdlib.org/blewp/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc also has a blog.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-9.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.