Federalism and Takeover Law: The Race to Protect Managers from Takeovers
This paper analyzes certain important shortcomings of state competition in corporate law. In particular, we show, with respect to takeovers, states have incentives to produce rules that excessively protect incumbent managers. The development of state takeover law, we argue, is consistent with our theory. States have adopted antitakeover statutes that have little policy basis, and, more importantly, they have provided managers with a wider and more open-ended latitude to engage in defensive tactics than endorsed even by the commentators most favorable to such tactics. Furthermore, states have elected, even though they could have done otherwise, to impose antitakeover protections on shareholders, who did not appear to favor them, in a way that left shareholders with little choice or say. Finally, we conclude by pointing out that proponents of state competition cannot reconcile their views with the evolution of state takeover law---and should therefore reconsider their unqualified support of state competition.
|Date of creation:||Jun 2000|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published as "Federalism and Corportate Law: The Race to Protect Managers from Takovers." Columbia Law Review, vol. 99, no.5, pp. 1168-1199 (1999)|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:7232. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.