Hand-Waving as a New Standard of Review: When Analyzing Matching Rights, has the Delaware Court of Chancery Abdicated its Review Process?
Vol: 121, Issue: 3, Page: 907
2017
- 59Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage59
- Downloads53
- Abstract Views6
Commentary Description
Deal protections have become increasingly popular in corporate merger agreements over the past decade, and they have also become increasingly more varied. One of the more popular deal protection measures is a matching right that enables an accepted bidder to match any subsequent bid that comes in. It is virtually ubiquitous in modem deals. Such ubiquity has led to potential problems. When Delaware courts review challenges to deal protection measures they are supposed to use an intermediate standard of review. Instead, however, the Delaware Court of Chancery appears to be subjecting matching rights to nothing more than a cursory glance, which stands in stark contrast to how the court treats other deal protection measures.This Comment discusses that appearance of permissiveness. In addition, this Comment discusses the proper standard of review for deal protection measures and analyzes how courts ought to review deal protection measures. Finally, this Comment suggests a reason for the alleged permissiveness and discusses a solution that will enable Delaware courts to properly review challenges to matching rights.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know