Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 99, June 2013, Issue 4
Constitutional Privileging
by Michael Coenen
A Constitutional Theory of Habeas Power
by Lee B. Kovarsky
The Dark Side of Town: The Social Capital Revolution in Residential Property Law
by Stephanie M. Stern
The Principal Problem: Towards a More Limited Role for Fiduciary Law in the Nonprofit Sector
by Natalie Brown
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
Noel Canning v. NLRB - Enforcing Basic Constitutional Limits On Presidential Power
Essay by Noel J. Francisco and James M. Burnham

Unequal Treatment of Religious Exercises Under RFRA: Explaining the Outliers in the HHS Mandate Cases
Essay by Mark Rienzi

Protecting Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty
Essay by Douglas Laycock and Thomas C. Berg

[More]
Announcements
Notes Accepted from the May 2013 Notes Pool

Virginia Law Review Announces Centennial Campaign

May Notes Pool Announcement

[More]

Email Updates
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links
Submit to In Brief

Forthcoming

Archive

Subscriptions

Advertisements

Customer Service

Short-Article Policy

Masthead

Contact Information
Virginia Law Review Association
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903-1789

Phone: 434-924-3079
Fax: 434-982-2818
E-Mail: lawrev@virginia.edu

Contact Valerie Listorti

December 2004, Volume 90, Issue 8

Toward a Controlling Shareholder Safe Harbor
by Steven M. Haas
90 Va. L. Rev. 2245 (2004)   View PDF

This Note surveys the law governing transactions between public corporations and their controlling shareholders. It explains that Delaware courts review these "controlling shareholder transactions" under the "entire fairness" standard. Yet, Delaware and the Model Act provide safe harbors to review independently approved transactions between corporations and their directors under the business judgment rule. This Note questions the disparate treatment and suggests that the same constraints on interested directors—namely, disinterested approval and market checks—are at least as effective in supervising controlling shareholders.

Next, this Note proposes that a safe harbor doctrine extend to controlling shareholder transactions. The premise is that, so long as the interests of controlling and minority shareholders are aligned, independent approval and market checks together provide sufficient constraints that challenge the utility of the current entire fairness rule. Yet, because these constraints fail when shareholder interests diverge in the so-called "final period," this Note suggests that controlling shareholder transactions be separated into (1) final period and (2) non-final period categories. Business judgment is appropriate when shareholder interests are aligned, but entire fairness is necessary in the final period to protect the minority from the controlling shareholder’s self interest.

This argument relies on two principal Delaware cases: Puma v. Marriott (1971) and Kahn v. Lynch Communications (1994). It suggests that Lynch implicitly recognized the final period problem, while Puma declined judicial review because the aggregate interests of shareholders were aligned. Thus, read together, they are seen as wholly consistent with the theory underlying a controlling shareholder safe harbor.


Click on an icon below to access the full text of this article*

Westlaw Westlaw   |  LexisNexis LexisNexis   |  HeinOnline HeinOnline   |  SSRN SSRN   |  Bloomberg Bloomberg   

* These are third-party content providers; they may require a separate subscription or charge a fee for access.