|
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
A Case Study: Air Products v. Airgas and the Value of Strategic Judicial Decision-MakingSteven M. DavidoffOhio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law; Ohio State University (OSU) - Department of Finance January 1, 2012 Columbia Business Law Review, Forthcoming 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.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 34 Keywords: Airgas, Air Products, Hostile Takeover, Takeovers, Poison Pill, Delaware, Bylaws, Strategic Decisionmaking, Proxy Contest, Jurisdictional Competition Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: January 10, 2012 ; Last revised: January 23, 2012Suggested Citation |
|
||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.890 seconds
