FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W243635132> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W243635132 startingPage "631" @default.
• W243635132 abstract "They say opportunity is like the flight of time. It keeps on rolling; it'll pass you by. Take a lesson from a fool's advice. Opportunity knocks once, not twice.1 I. INTRODUCTION Seventeen years have passed since Smith v. Van Gorkom (the Trans Union case) imposed personal liability on Trans Union's directors for violating their duty of care.2 Time has not dimmed the initial luster of the Van Gorkom decision.3 Considered a legal disaster in 1985,4 it is judged no less disastrous today.5 If sheer wrong-headedness of result were disqualifying, Van Gorkom would not be worth rereading. With the folly of the opinion fully appreciated today, there will never be another Van Gorkom.6 It is submitted here, however, that at least two features of Van Gorkom, not apparent at the time, make it worth revisiting. First, perhaps remarkably, the Delaware Supreme Court never mentioned what (if anything) would have happened differently, had the directors done what the court believed their duty required. Under accepted rules of causation in duty-of-care cases, a showing that shareholders had actually been damaged by directors' commissions or (here) omissions would have been required. The Van Gorkom court never asked the question: compared to what alternative outcome were shareholders in fact hurt? Subsequent excoriations of Van Gorkom have likewise failed to ask the compared-to-what question in any detail. This Article constructs a simple probability-based model of the Trans Union board's decision that attempts to answer the question numerically. Second, Van Gorkom is noteworthy for the reactions it sparked in the corporate bar and state legislatures. While these subsequent developments are familiar to corporate lawyers, they have implications going beyond mere correction of the mischief that Van Gorkom unleashed. The reactions to the case illustrate, as few other examples can, the true source of vitality in American corporate law. That aspect of Van Gorkom, too, makes it worth remembering seventeen years later. II. BACKGROUND With the case now a staple of the corporate-law curriculum, the salient facts surrounding the Van Gorkom decision need no lengthy recitation. It suffices to recall only those essential to the analysis here. Trans Union, and in particular its board chairman and chief executive officer, Jerome Van Gorkom, had spent years trying to find ways to unlock the value contained in Trans Union's accumulated investment tax credits (ITCs). Absent changes in tax law (for which Van Gorkom had publicly lobbied), Trans Union could not realize the value of its ITCs, given the firm's future expected revenue flows and the tax-based accelerated depreciation schedules being applied to firm assets. Because the ITCs were nontransferable, Trans Union ultimately required some sort of acquisition or merger to maximize their value.8 Various fundamental corporate changes had been considered when Van Gorkom hit upon the idea of an outsider acquiring Trans Union in a highly leveraged buy-out of Trans Union shareholders. In September 1980, Van Gorkom proposed such a deal to Jay Pritzker, whom he knew socially, and Pritzker agreed within days to the essentials of Van Gorkom's proposal. Pritzker would offer $55 per share, a sizeable premium over market-some $21 over the mid-range of Trans Union share prices for 1980 and almost $18 more than its closing price on the last trading day before the Pritzker offer was announced.9 Thereafter, Trans Union would be merged into a Pritzker subsidiary formed to implement the merger. However, Pritzker demanded that the deal be completed quickly. He was concerned that his bid would put Trans Union in play, ultimately to be acquired by another bidder, and he did not want to be a stalking horse in that way. Van Gorkom, on the other hand, was concerned about any deal that would not leave the Trans Union board free to accept an offer higher than Pritzker's $55 per share proposal. …" @default.
• W243635132 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W243635132 creator A5077695075 @default.
• W243635132 date "2002-01-01" @default.
• W243635132 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W243635132 title "A Bird in the Hand and Liability in the Bush: Why Van Gorkom Still Rankles, Probably" @default.
• W243635132 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W243635132 type Work @default.
• W243635132 sameAs 243635132 @default.
• W243635132 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W243635132 countsByYear W2436351322015 @default.
• W243635132 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W243635132 hasAuthorship W243635132A5077695075 @default.
• W243635132 hasConcept C120757647 @default.
• W243635132 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W243635132 hasConcept C166151441 @default.
• W243635132 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W243635132 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W243635132 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W243635132 hasConcept C2776218876 @default.
• W243635132 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W243635132 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W243635132 hasConcept C2779103253 @default.
• W243635132 hasConcept C39389867 @default.
• W243635132 hasConceptScore W243635132C120757647 @default.
• W243635132 hasConceptScore W243635132C162324750 @default.
• W243635132 hasConceptScore W243635132C166151441 @default.
• W243635132 hasConceptScore W243635132C17744445 @default.
• W243635132 hasConceptScore W243635132C187736073 @default.
• W243635132 hasConceptScore W243635132C199539241 @default.
• W243635132 hasConceptScore W243635132C2776218876 @default.
• W243635132 hasConceptScore W243635132C2777834853 @default.
• W243635132 hasConceptScore W243635132C2778272461 @default.
• W243635132 hasConceptScore W243635132C2779103253 @default.
• W243635132 hasConceptScore W243635132C39389867 @default.
• W243635132 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W243635132 hasLocation W2436351321 @default.
• W243635132 hasOpenAccess W243635132 @default.
• W243635132 hasPrimaryLocation W2436351321 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W129040843 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W1494014549 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W1553067950 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W1831928093 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W2048373929 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W208297396 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W2131142772 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W2138940503 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W2272707699 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W2398231342 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W2603237183 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W293538487 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W295492418 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W306851520 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W3123633553 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W320421949 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W58496741 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W614914634 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W83064007 @default.
• W243635132 hasRelatedWork W2602344036 @default.
• W243635132 hasVolume "96" @default.
• W243635132 isParatext "false" @default.
• W243635132 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W243635132 magId "243635132" @default.
• W243635132 workType "article" @default.