<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/02/17/dow-reaffirms-delawares-business-judgment-rule/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 11:30:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Dow Reaffirms Delaware’s Business Judgment Rule</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/02/17/dow-reaffirms-delawares-business-judgment-rule/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=dow-reaffirms-delawares-business-judgment-rule</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/02/17/dow-reaffirms-delawares-business-judgment-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:04:35 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Derivative suits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In re Dow]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=7236?d=20150120103652EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Delaware Chancery Court recently issued a resounding affirmation of the business judgment rule in the case In re the Dow Chemical Company Derivative Litigation. [1] Directors can take comfort in this timely reminder that, despite challenging economic circumstances and an environment of heightened scrutiny of boards and individual directors, the protections of the business [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by David A. Katz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.wlrk.com/Page.cfm/Thread/Attorneys/SubThread/Search/Name/Katz,%20David%20A." target="_blank">David A. Katz</a> is a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &amp; Katz specializing in the areas of mergers and acquisitions and complex securities transactions. This post is based on an article by Mr. Katz and Laura A. McIntosh that appeared in the <em>New York Law Journal</em>. This post is part of the <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">Delaware law series</a>, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p><a name="1b"></a>The Delaware Chancery Court recently issued a resounding affirmation of the business judgment rule in the case <em>In re the Dow Chemical Company Derivative Litigation.</em> <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/02/17/dow-reaffirms-delaware%E2%80%99s-business-judgment-rule#1">[1]</a> Directors can take comfort in this timely reminder that, despite challenging economic circumstances and an environment of heightened scrutiny of boards and individual directors, the protections of the business judgment rule remain robust in Delaware.</p>
<p><strong>The <em>Dow Chemical</em> Case</strong></p>
<p><em>Dow</em> was a shareholder derivative suit filed nearly a year ago amid turmoil over Dow’s planned acquisition of another chemical company, Rohm &amp; Haas, for aggregate consideration of approximately $18.8 billion. The Dow stockholders alleged that the directors and officers of Dow had breached their fiduciary duties in at least three different respects: first, in approving the Rohm &amp; Haas transaction without a financing contingency; second, in misrepresenting the connection between the Rohm &amp; Haas transaction and another pending transaction, a joint venture with a Kuwaiti company for which a memorandum of understanding had been entered into six months previously; and third, in failing to detect and prevent various corporate misdeeds during the course of both transactions, including bribery, misrepresentation, insider trading and wasteful compensation.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/02/17/dow-reaffirms-delawares-business-judgment-rule/#more-7236" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Dow Reaffirms Delaware’s Business Judgment Rule">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/02/17/dow-reaffirms-delawares-business-judgment-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
