A Case Study: Air Products v. Airgas and the Value of Strategic Judicial Decision-Making

34 Pages Posted: 10 Jan 2012 Last revised: 23 Jan 2012

See all articles by Steven Davidoff Solomon

Steven Davidoff Solomon

University of California, Berkeley - School of Law; European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)

Date Written: January 1, 2012

Abstract

When is it appropriate for Delaware judges to act strategically? This case study documents and analyzes Air Products’ $5.8 billion unsuccessful, hostile offer for Airgas, reviewing the decisions made by the Delaware courts in adjudicating the most prominent takeover bid of 2010. The three court opinions in Air Products v. Airgas show how Delaware courts strategically decide cases and the effect of this decision-making on the course of Delaware corporate law and Delaware’s constituencies. The Airgas case ultimately provides a useful lesson for when, if ever, strategic considerations should influence the outcome of individual Delaware corporate law disputes.

Keywords: Airgas, Air Products, Hostile Takeover, Takeovers, Poison Pill, Delaware, Bylaws, Strategic Decisionmaking, Proxy Contest, Jurisdictional Competition

Suggested Citation

Davidoff Solomon, Steven, A Case Study: Air Products v. Airgas and the Value of Strategic Judicial Decision-Making (January 1, 2012). Columbia Business Law Review, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1982199

Steven Davidoff Solomon (Contact Author)

University of California, Berkeley - School of Law ( email )

215 Boalt Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
United States

European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) ( email )

c/o the Royal Academies of Belgium
Rue Ducale 1 Hertogsstraat
1000 Brussels
Belgium

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
896
Abstract Views
5,769
Rank
48,936
PlumX Metrics