Lipton and Rowe's Apologia for Delaware: A Short Reply
22 Pages Posted: 13 Feb 2002
There are 2 versions of this paper
Lipton and Rowe's Apologia for Delaware: A Short Reply
Lipton and Rowe's Apologia for Delaware: A Short Reply
Date Written: December 2001
Abstract
In Unocal Fifteen Years Later I offered a respectful but negative assessment of the Delaware Supreme Court's post-Unocal efforts to walk a line between managerialists who believe directors should be able to block a hostile takeover, and those who believe the ultimate decision whether to accept a takeover bid belongs to the shareholders. I suggested that Delaware law could be repositioned without requiring the Delaware Supreme Court to confess error by allowing shareholder adopted bylaws that repeal or amend poison pills. Martin Lipton and Paul Rowe responded to my essay by arguing that recent economic challenges to efficient market theory, together with studies showing that the poison pill leads to increased takeover premia, undermines the premise on which a shareholder choice regime is based. In this reply, I correct Lipton and Rowe's misunderstanding of the role of market efficiency (and recent critical studies) in assessing shareholders' role in the governance of takeovers, as well as their assessment of why a poison pill may increase takeover premia.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
A Survey of Corporate Governance
By Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny
-
The Separation of Ownership and Control in East Asian Corporations
By Stijn Claessens, Simeon Djankov, ...
-
One Share/One Vote and the Market for Corporate Control
By Sanford J. Grossman and Oliver Hart