<?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/2011/03/29/delaware-decision-supports-properly-structured-top-up-options-in-tender-offers/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, 07 Jun 2026 11:30:27 +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 Decision Supports Properly Structured Top-Up Options in Tender Offers</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/03/29/delaware-decision-supports-properly-structured-top-up-options-in-tender-offers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=delaware-decision-supports-properly-structured-top-up-options-in-tender-offers</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/03/29/delaware-decision-supports-properly-structured-top-up-options-in-tender-offers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:07:08 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers & Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Olson v. EV3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tender offer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Top-up option]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=16336?d=20150120093539EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since their emergence about ten years ago, “top-up” options have become a common feature in tender offers forming the first stage in a “two-step” cash acquisition. A recent decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery confirms that properly structured top-up options will withstand legal challenge and effectively facilitate prompt completion of a back-end merger. Olson [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Trevor Norwitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on Tuesday, March 29, 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.wlrk.com/Page.cfm/Thread/Attorneys/SubThread/Search/Name/Norwitz,%20Trevor%20S." target="_blank">Trevor Norwitz</a> is a partner in the Corporate Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &amp; Katz, where he focuses on mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance and securities law matters. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton firm memorandum by Mr. Norwitz, <a href="http://www.wlrk.com/WDSavitt" target="_blank">William Savitt</a> and <a href="http://www.wlrk.com/SVNiles" target="_blank">Sabastian V. Niles</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>Since their emergence about ten years ago, “top-up” options have become a common feature in tender offers forming the first stage in a “two-step” cash acquisition. A recent decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery confirms that properly structured top-up options will withstand legal challenge and effectively facilitate prompt completion of a back-end merger. <em>Olson</em> v. <em>EV3, Inc., et al.</em>, C.A. No. 5583-VCL (Del. Ch. Feb. 21, 2011).</p>
<p>A top-up option granted by an issuer to the acquirer enables the acquirer, once it has obtained control of the target company in the tender offer, to immediately increase its ownership to the threshold required (90 percent in Delaware) to effect a short-form merger and secure full ownership of the target without having to hold a shareholder meeting. As Vice Chancellor Laster recognized in his recent opinion, this approach offers advantages to all parties. By avoiding the cost and delay of having to hold a special meeting whose outcome is a foregone conclusion, the buyer is able to close the back-end merger sooner, thus reducing transaction risk, facilitating efficient financing, and speeding integration of the acquired company. Target shareholders, for their part, also benefit from a reduction in transaction risk, and, importantly, receive their merger consideration months earlier than they otherwise would.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/03/29/delaware-decision-supports-properly-structured-top-up-options-in-tender-offers/#more-16336" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Delaware Decision Supports Properly Structured Top-Up Options in Tender Offers">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/03/29/delaware-decision-supports-properly-structured-top-up-options-in-tender-offers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
