IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bep/conlaw/uconn_ucwps-1014.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Costs and Benefits of Precommitment: An Appraisal of Omnicare v. NCS Healthcare

Author

Listed:
  • Sean Griffith

    (University of Connecticut)

Abstract

In Omnicare v. NCS Healthcare, the Delaware Supreme Court recently announced a bright-line rule against precommitment in mergers and acquisitions. Even in the context of a "friendly" merger, transacting parties may not fully protect their deal from intervening bidders and instead must insert an escape clause, in the form of a fiduciary out, in their merger agreements. As a result, targets can no longer offer contractual certainty as a part of the transaction.This article engages in a close analysis of the NCS opinion, first exposing the weaknesses in its doctrinal foundations, then analyzing its implications from the perspective of shareholder welfare. It finds that the NCS rule is both unsupported by existing law and harmful to shareholder welfare. The article then draws upon economic theory to propose an alternative, the "market check rule," that would control the costs of commitment while preserving the ability of target boards, under certain circumstances, to follow an affirmative precommitment strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Sean Griffith, "undated". "The Costs and Benefits of Precommitment: An Appraisal of Omnicare v. NCS Healthcare," University of Connecticut School of Law Working Papers uconn_ucwps-1014, University of Connecticut School of Law.
  • Handle: RePEc:bep:conlaw:uconn_ucwps-1014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=uconn/ucwps
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bep:conlaw:uconn_ucwps-1014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.law.uconn.edu/ .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.law.uconn.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.