Renee Z's Avatar

Renee Z

@reneezay.bsky.social

Partner @ Boies Schiller. Securities and shareholder litigation. Shareholder activism. Corporate governance geek. New here. All views my own.

110 Followers  |  476 Following  |  13 Posts  |  Joined: 18.02.2024  |  2.0643

Latest posts by reneezay.bsky.social on Bluesky

That’s my take too. It’s like the Court saidβ€”people think Delaware is too tough on controllers? Maybe they will leave us for Nevada? Ha! We will make it even tougher!!

04.04.2024 16:40 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Fin.

04.04.2024 16:29 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

The Court had a chance to ease up on Delaware fiduciaries and possibly put a lot of that chatter to rest. Instead, it doubled down on MFW and even went one step further with its clarification that the committee has to be FULLY independent in order to get the benefit of the business judgment rule.

04.04.2024 16:28 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

On the other hand, there's been a lot of chatter about whether Delaware companies should decamp to "friendlier" jurisdictions like Nevada, which has eliminated entire fairness review altogether.

04.04.2024 16:28 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

They could have argued for a change in the law. Instead, they engaged in revisionist history and argued that the law already mandated their proffered result. It's not surprising that the Delaware Supreme Court wasn't fooled.

04.04.2024 16:27 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

The decision was both surprising and not surprising.

On the one hand, I give the defendants' counsel immense credit for a creative argument, but I didn't agree with their interpretation of the relevant precedents.

04.04.2024 16:27 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

The Court also went one step further and clarified that the special committee has to be COMPLETELY independent; a majority of independent directors is not good enough.

04.04.2024 16:26 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

But MFW was a squeeze-out case, and the defendants argued that just one of these protections is sufficient to obtain BJR review outside of the squeeze-out context. The Court rejected this argument and held that both MFW protections are required to get BJR in all conflicted controller transactions.

04.04.2024 16:25 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Under MFW, defendants could shift the standard of review from entire fairness to business judgment if they obtained approval of BOTH (i) an independent special committee, and (ii) a majority of the minority stockholders.

04.04.2024 16:25 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Today, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its hotly anticipated decision in the Match Group litigation. The result: the Court did NOT loosen the requirements to obtain business judgment review of conflicted controller transactions. My take:

04.04.2024 16:23 β€” πŸ‘ 4    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Excellentβ€”but was it really quick?

29.03.2024 13:12 β€” πŸ‘ 0    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

What a nice poem though. I had this assignment too. I couldn’t pick a poem so a friend, a little bit of a rebel, told me to do People are Strange. So I did.

26.03.2024 02:26 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Absolutely unreal

15.03.2024 21:25 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

@reneezay is following 20 prominent accounts