Lawrence A. Hamermesh’s research while affiliated with Widener University and other places

The prevalence of settlements in class and derivative litigation challenging mergers and acquisitions in which the only payment is to plaintiffs’ attorneys suggests potential systemic dysfunction arising from the increased frequency of parallel litigation in multiple state courts. After examining possible explanations for that dysfunction, and the historical development of doctrines limiting parallel state court litigation — the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the “first-filed” doctrine — this article suggests that those doctrines should be revised to better address shareholder class and derivative litigation. Revisions to the doctrine of forum non conveniens should continue the historical trend, deemphasizing fortuitous and increasingly irrelevant geographic considerations, and should place greater emphasis on voluntary choice of law and the development of precedential guidance by the courts of the state responsible for supplying the chosen law. The “first-filed” rule should be replaced in shareholder representative litigation by meaningful consideration of affected parties’ interests and judicial efficiency.

Recent Congressional corporate governance initiatives have reallocated to independent directors the functions of hiring and supervising the work of certain “gatekeepers,” and some have proposed such a reallocation with respect to general counsel, as a means to address cognitive biases and capture by senior management that may prevent inside counsel from identifying and preventing corporate misconduct. That proposal, however, does not sufficiently account for the positive effect on corporate conduct arising from a close relationship of trust and confidence between general counsel and the CEO or other senior managers. Eliminating such a relationship is likely to undermine access to internal information and the willingness of corporate actors to respond positively to counsel’s efforts to promote legal compliance. In contrast, steps short of reallocating oversight of the general counsel to independent directors are likely to promote independent judgment on the part of general counsel without unduly undermining those benefits.

Despite criticism of Delaware’s corporate statutes by the drafters of the original Model Business Corporation Act (MBCA), there has been a constructive symbiosis between the MBCA and Delaware’s corporation law, including its statutory component: each set of statutes has been informed by drafting and case-law experience generated under the other; especially in recent years, Delaware’s legislature and judiciary have initiated important new elements of corporate law, subsequently adopted by the MBCA; and the MBCA’s more deeply deliberative style has led to useful refinements of Delaware law.

The duties owed by independent directors of large corporations to monitor the corporation’s affairs have never had more political salience. Given the Enron-era debacles, the recent meltdown in our nation’s financial sector, the dependence of workers on equity investments to secure their retirements, the globalization of American corporate law principles, and the complexity of managing corporations with international operations, the legal standards used to evaluate whether directors have complied with their fiduciary duties will be a subject of growing international policy interest. This article addresses an important dimension of that issue by examining the role of good faith in corporate law, and its use as the definition of the state of mind with which a director must act to comply with the fiduciary duty of loyalty. In particular, this article employs an historical, etymological, and policy-oriented analysis to address the question of whether the obligation of directors to act in good faith is a separate, free-standing fiduciary duty, or a fundamental aspect of the core duty of loyalty.We conclude, consistent with the Delaware Supreme Court’s recent decision in Stone v. Ritter, that in the American corporate law tradition, the basic definition of the duty of loyalty is the obligation to act in good faith to advance the best interests of the corporation. What this article also shows is that the duty of loyalty has traditionally been conceived of as being much broader than the duty to avoid acting for personal financial advantage. The duty of loyalty also precludes acting for unlawful purposes, and affirmatively requires directors to make a good faith effort to monitor the corporation’s affairs and compliance with law.Finally, we highlight a critical policy implication resulting from Stone v. Ritter, which is that an independent director who is accused of having failed in her monitoring duties may only be held liable if a court finds that she breached her duty of loyalty by consciously failing to make a good faith effort to comply with her duty of care. By requiring a finding of bad faith before imposing liability on an independent director, the corporate law, as explicated by Stone, protects the policy interests underlying the business judgment rule from erosion.

Introductory speech for the Delaware General Corporation Law for the 21st Century symposium presented at Widener Law School's Delaware campus on May 5, 2008, and the articles published in this issue of the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law.

This Article makes several contributions to the literature on Delaware appraisal law. We first argue that the "going concern value" standard adopted by the Delaware courts as the measure of "fair value" in share valuation proceedings is superior to its two main competitors, market value and third-party sale value, on grounds of both fairness and efficiency. Application of the going concern value standard has two important consequences. First, it is critical that going concern value be measured in a way that includes not only the present value of the existing assets of the corporation, but also the present value of the reinvestment opportunities available to and anticipated by the firm at the time of merger. Second, going concern value should not include the value of corporate control in a case where the merger creates control through the aggregation of previously dispersed shares. In that case, the benefits created by the aggregation of shares belong to the party that created the increased value.We address differently, however, the situation where a pre-existing controlling shareholder squeezes out the minority. Our concern here is the potential for a controlling shareholder to acquire the minority shares at a price that fails to reflect the firm's going concern value. Where a controller fails to present a valid discounted cash flow analysis and relies instead on a comparable company analysis that is based solely on historical data, the minority shareholders and the court are deprived of access to projections of future free cash flows of the firm. We therefore advocate that in this situation the courts adopt a penalty default in the form of a presumption that fair value includes the value of control as reflected in comparable company acquisitions. Such a presumption is consistent with common law doctrines of fiduciary duty and the entire fairness standard, as well as adverse evidentiary inferences drawn from failure to produce relevant evidence. The controller as faithful fiduciary can avoid the proposed presumption by preparing and submitting to judicial scrutiny a valid discounted cash flow analysis. The opportunistic controller, on the other hand, is subjected to a fair value determination that amounts to third-party sale value minus synergies.

With director monetary liability for lack of care (appropriately, in the author's view) fading or disappearing altogether since Smith v. Van Gorkom, litigation invoking the duty of care seems increasingly unlikely to serve as a vehicle for public scrutiny of, and reputational sanctions for, director conduct that is substandard but does not involve self-interest or lack of good faith. It is therefore increasingly important to examine when information obtained through the exercise of stockholder inspection rights can be made public. A recent case involving the Walt Disney Company - but not the well-known litigation involving Michael Ovitz' termination compensation - addresses the issue of confidential treatment of such information. Prompted by the Court of Chancery's treatment of the issue, this Article proposes that the courts review and balance a number of factors - the subject matter of the information, the level of public interest in the information, the motives of the stockholder in seeking the information and (perhaps) ultimately seeking to make it public, and the context in which the information was generated - to determine whether information afforded pursuant to stockholder inspection rights should remain confidential.

The "implicit minority discount," or IMD, is a fairly new concept in Delaware appraisal law. A review of the case law discussing the concept, however, reveals that it has emerged haphazardly and has not been fully tested against principles that are generally accepted in the financial community. While control share blocks are valued at a premium because of the particular rights and opportunities associated with control, these are elements of value that cannot fairly be viewed as belonging either to the corporation or its shareholders. In corporations with widely dispersed share holdings, the firm is subject to agency costs that must be taken into consideration in determining going concern value. A control block-oriented valuation that fails to deduct such costs does not represent the going concern value of the firm. As a matter of generally accepted financial theory, on the other hand, share prices in liquid and informed markets do generally represent that going concern value, with attendant agency costs factored or priced in. There is no evidence that such prices systematically and continuously err on the low side, requiring upward adjustment based on an "implicit minority discount."Given the lack of serious support for the IMD in finance literature, this Article suggests that the Delaware courts may be relying on the IMD as a means to avoid imposing upon squeezed-out minority shareholders the costs of fiduciary misconduct by the controller. Where either past or estimated future earnings or cash flows are found to be depressed as a result of fiduciary misconduct, however, or where such earnings or cash flows fail to include elements of value that belong to the corporation being valued, the appropriate way to address the corresponding reduction in the determination of "fair value" is by adjusting those subject company earnings or cash flows upward.This approach to the problem of controller opportunism is more direct, more comprehensive in its application, and more in keeping with prevailing financial principles, than the implicit minority discount that the Delaware courts have applied in the limited context of comparable company analysis. The Delaware courts can therefore comfortably dispense with resort to the financially unsupported concept that liquid and informed share markets systematically understate going concern value.

From a first-hand perspective, the author reviews the mechanisms by which Delaware creates its corporate law, and identifies various explanations for Delaware's prominence and its corporate lawmaking ("race" theories, Roe's identification of active or dormant federal power as a limiting influence, and Kahan and Rock's description of "symbiotic federalism"). Although finding support for all of these accounts, the author maintains that none fully expresses the considerations that are actually salient for Delaware corporate law policymakers. The author suggests, rather, that the following considerations are dominant: (1) enhancing flexibility to engage in private ordering, (2) deferring to case-by-case development of the law, and avoiding legislation that is prescriptive and proscriptive, (3) avoiding impairment of preexisting contractual relationships and expectations, and (4) most importantly, avoiding legislative change in the absence of clear and specific practical benefits. Because of the dominance of these considerations, the author suggests that Delaware is unlikely to expand materially the regulation of corporate actors by means of either statutory or common law change. While additional federal regulation of corporate governance will emerge sporadically in response to political crises, any effort by Delaware to anticipate or respond to such additional federal regulation will involve small steps that will not significantly alter the existing allocation of power and authority among corporate constituencies.

The following lecture was presented on March 21, 2005 on the occasion of Professor Lawrence A. Hamermesh's installation as the first Ruby R. Vale Professor of Corporate and Business Law. This is the first endowed professorship created at the Widener University School of Law, and is therefore a significant milestone in the growth of the Law School. The generosity of the Ruby R. Vale Foundation in funding this professor-ship is expected to support future research, lectures and symposia on the subject of Delaware business entity laws. Professor Hamermesh's lecture followed introductory remarks by The Honorable Jack B. Jacobs, Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court. In this speech, Professor Hamermesh discusses some of Ruby R. Vale's contributions to legal scholarship as well as the impact those contributions had on the legal community. Additionally, Professor Hamermesh explains how he can continue Mr. Vale's scholarly purpose as the Ruby R. Vale Professor of Corporate and Business Law.