Preemption as Micromanagement
Larry E. Ribstein (Deceased)
University of Illinois College of Law; PERC - Property and Environment Research Center
June 17, 2010
Business Lawyer, Vol. 65, p. 789, 2010
University of Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper No. LE10-011
Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 10-04
Guhan Subramanian, Steven Herscovici & Brian Barbetta, Is Delaware’s Antitakeover Statute Unconstitutional? Evidence from 1988-2008, 65 BUS. LAW. 685 (2010) (“SHB”), argues that the constitutionality of the Delaware takeover statute is “up for grabs” because it denies bidders the “meaningful opportunity for success” three Delaware district court opinions require to avoid preemption by the Williams Act. However, this comment on SHB argues that, even assuming the applicable federal cases might be construed to support SHB’s conclusion, courts almost certainly would not follow this approach once they saw, with the aid of SHB’s analysis, the extent to which it requires courts to micromanage state corporate law. Moreover, from a policy standpoint, this micromanagement could have a significant negative effect on the development of state law. In short, rather than providing an argument for preempting the Delaware statute, SHB’s analysis demonstrates why it is important to avoid this result.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 11
JEL Classification: K22
Date posted: June 18, 2010 ; Last revised: October 1, 2010
© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.625 seconds