Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2379736
 


 



The Dwindling of Revlon


Lyman Johnson


Washington and Lee University - School of Law; University of St. Thomas, St. Paul/Minneapolis, MN - School of Law

Rob Ricca


Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

2014

Washington and Lee Law Review, 2014, Forthcoming
U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-06
Washington & Lee Legal Studies Paper No. 2014-10

Abstract:     
This article traces the dramatic dwindling of the iconic Revlon doctrine. Over the past several years, we observe a paradox in M&A litigation. The number of challenges to “done deal” transactions has skyrocketed, but the number of successful Revlon claims – those procuring a remedy - has plummeted. Having set out to suggest, as a theory and policy matter, that Revlon might be extended into the attempted but failed “no deal” context, we conclude, ironically, that today there is little remedial clout to the Revlon doctrine in any setting.

The overly exalted place of Revlon in the law thought to govern M&A deals endures because it is regarded in narrow, silo-like doctrinal isolation even though it can only be understood as one part of a legal landscape that has dramatically changed since 1986. Revlon, for example, no longer sets the standard in damages cases. Thus, oft-cited statements from the QVC case regarding enhanced substantive scrutiny by courts, and the planning of an initial burden of proof on directors, are outmoded doctrinal vestiges in the personal liability context. As to injunctive relief, only one injunction – out of numerous claims – was granted on a Revlon theory in the six year period from 2008-2013.

By adopting a remedies perspective on Revlon, we thus see that the ongoing debate over what “triggers” Revlon in mixed consideration deals is a debate with small stakes: only pre-closing relief is up for grabs anyway, and that is rarely granted. We should stop regarding Revlon as a robust standalone doctrine. Delaware courts should go further, however. They should renounce Revlon’s faulty focus on short-term value maximization. Then, the corporate objective in the sale setting – of whatever kind – would be the same as it is (and should be) outside the sale setting: to pursue the best option for achieving long-term value.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 61

Keywords: Revlon doctrine, mergers & acquisitions, M&A, shareholders' litigation, director's liability

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: January 16, 2014 ; Last revised: March 5, 2014

Suggested Citation

Johnson, Lyman and Ricca, Rob, The Dwindling of Revlon (2014). Washington and Lee Law Review, 2014, Forthcoming; U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-06; Washington & Lee Legal Studies Paper No. 2014-10. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2379736

Contact Information

Lyman P. Q. Johnson (Contact Author)
Washington and Lee University - School of Law ( email )
Lexington, VA 24450
United States
540-458-8515 (Phone)
540-458-8488 (Fax)
University of St. Thomas, St. Paul/Minneapolis, MN - School of Law
MSL 400, 1000 La Salle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN Minnesota 55403-2005
United States

Rob Ricca
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati ( email )
650 Page Mill Rd
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 896
Downloads: 227
Download Rank: 77,001

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.375 seconds