<?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/2010/11/02/the-airgas-case-and-our-work-on-staggered-boards/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>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 11:32:56 +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>The Airgas Case and Our Work on Staggered Boards</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/11/02/the-airgas-case-and-our-work-on-staggered-boards/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-airgas-case-and-our-work-on-staggered-boards</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/11/02/the-airgas-case-and-our-work-on-staggered-boards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Academic Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Empirical Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HLS Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers & Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Airgas v. Air Products & Chemicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boards of Directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Staggered boards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Takeovers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=13729?d=20230309150527EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Delaware Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments soon in the case of Airgas vs. Air Products. In its briefs, as well as in oral argument before the Chancery Court, Airgas used our academic work on staggered board as evidence for its position. However, our academic articles, and the empirical evidence put forward [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates, Alma Cohen and Guhan Subramanian, Harvard Law School, on Tuesday, November 2, 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.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bebchuk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lucian Bebchuk</a>, <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=11" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Coates</a>, <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/corporate_governance/cohen.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alma Cohen</a>, and <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=445" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Guhan Subramanian</a> teach at Harvard Law School. Their academic work on staggered boards is available <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=304388" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>, <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=360840" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a> and <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=556987" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. 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>The Delaware Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments soon in the case of <em>Airgas vs. Air Products</em>. In its briefs, as well as in oral argument before the Chancery Court, Airgas used our academic work on staggered board as evidence for its position. However, our academic articles, and the empirical evidence put forward in them, support the opposite position.</p>
<p>The case before the Delaware courts arose from Air Products’ unsolicited offer for Airgas. Facing opposition from Airgas to its offer, Air Products ran a competing slate for the August 2010 annual meeting and was able to replace one-third of the directors. (Airgas has a staggered board and thus only one-third of its directors came up for re-election at that annual meeting.) Air Products also succeeded in getting majority support for passing a bylaw moving up Airgas’ next annual meeting to January 2011, thus creating the possibility that another one-third of the directors could be replaced then.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/11/02/the-airgas-case-and-our-work-on-staggered-boards/#more-13729" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading The Airgas Case and Our Work on Staggered Boards">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/11/02/the-airgas-case-and-our-work-on-staggered-boards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
