<?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/2011/03/01/delaware-court-of-chancery-gets-airgas-right/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>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:11:10 +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>Delaware Court of Chancery Gets Airgas Right</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/03/01/delaware-court-of-chancery-gets-airgas-right/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=delaware-court-of-chancery-gets-airgas-right</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/03/01/delaware-court-of-chancery-gets-airgas-right/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 13:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers & Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Airgas v. Air Products & Chemicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Poison pills]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=16194?d=20150120093900EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chancellor Chandler’s decision in Air Products and Chemicals Inc. v. Airgas, Inc. (Del. Ch., CA No. 5249-CC, 2/15/11) upholding the board’s maintenance of the company’s shareholder rights plan in the face of an unfriendly cash tender offer the board determined was inadequate has justifiably received a great deal of attention and analysis.  Despite his reluctance, [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Stanley Keller, Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP, on Tuesday, March 1, 2011 </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.eapdlaw.com/professionals/detail.aspx?attorney=418" target="_blank">Stanley Keller</a> is partner of Edwards Angell Palmer Dodge LLP. The <em>Airgas</em> case was previously discussed in an op-ed by Professor Lucian Bebchuk, available <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2011/02/24/an-antidote-for-the-poison-pill/">here</a>, and a paper from the Program on Corporate Governance, available <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2011/02/07/staggered-boards-and-the-wealth-of-shareholders-evidence-from-the-two-airgas-rulings/">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>Chancellor Chandler’s decision in <em>Air Products and Chemicals Inc. v. Airgas, Inc.</em> (Del. Ch., CA No. 5249-CC, 2/15/11) upholding the board’s maintenance of the company’s shareholder rights plan in the face of an unfriendly cash tender offer the board determined was inadequate has justifiably received a great deal of attention and analysis.  Despite his reluctance, I believe the Chancellor got it right.  By permitting the Airgas board to keep the rights plan in place under the facts of that case, he upheld the foundational director-centric model for governance of Delaware corporations and recognized the importance of long-term value creation as a critical focus for Delaware corporate enterprises.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/03/01/delaware-court-of-chancery-gets-airgas-right/#more-16194" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Delaware Court of Chancery Gets Airgas Right">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/03/01/delaware-court-of-chancery-gets-airgas-right/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
