<?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/2014/04/22/chen-v-howard-anderson-delaware-court-issues-guidance-regarding-ma-transactions/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>Mon, 10 Aug 2026 13:46:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.9</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Chen v. Howard-Anderson: Delaware Court Issues Guidance Regarding M&#038;A Transactions</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/04/22/chen-v-howard-anderson-delaware-court-issues-guidance-regarding-ma-transactions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=chen-v-howard-anderson-delaware-court-issues-guidance-regarding-ma-transactions</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/04/22/chen-v-howard-anderson-delaware-court-issues-guidance-regarding-ma-transactions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:18:04 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Accounting & Disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boards of Directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers & Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bidders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Earnings disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Merger litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder suits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=62611?d=20141215162804EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On April 8, 2014, Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an opinion addressing the reasonableness of a &#8220;market check&#8221; as well as required proxy disclosures to stockholders in M&#38;A transactions. In Chen v. Howard-Anderson, [1] the Vice Chancellor held that (i) evidence suggesting that a board of directors favored a potential [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Tuesday, April 22, 2014 </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;">The following post comes to us from <a href="http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/egallardo" target="_blank">Eduardo Gallardo</a> and <a href="http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/rlittle" target="_blank">Robert B. Little</a>, partners in the Mergers and Acquisitions practice at Gibson, Dunn &amp; Crutcher LLP, and is based on a Gibson Dunn client alert by Mr. Little, <a title="" href="http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/godegaard" target="_blank">Gregory A. Odegaard</a>, and <a href="http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/cbabcock" target="_blank">Chris Babcock</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>On April 8, 2014, Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an opinion addressing the reasonableness of a &#8220;market check&#8221; as well as required proxy disclosures to stockholders in M&amp;A transactions. In <em>Chen v. Howard-Anderson</em>, <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2014/04/22/chen-v-howard-anderson-delaware-court-issues-guidance-regarding-ma-transactions/#1">[1]</a><a name="1b"></a> the Vice Chancellor held that (i) evidence suggesting that a board of directors favored a potential acquirer by, among other things, failing to engage in a robust market check precluded summary judgment against a non-exculpated director, and (ii) evidence that the board failed to disclose all material facts in its proxy statement precluded summary judgment against all directors. The opinion addresses the appropriate scope of a market check, the necessary disclosure when submitting a transaction to stockholders for approval, the effect of exculpatory provisions in a company&#8217;s certificate of incorporation, and the potential conflicts faced by directors who are also fiduciaries of one of the company&#8217;s stockholders.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/04/22/chen-v-howard-anderson-delaware-court-issues-guidance-regarding-ma-transactions/#more-62611" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Chen v. Howard-Anderson: Delaware Court Issues Guidance Regarding M&#038;A Transactions">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/04/22/chen-v-howard-anderson-delaware-court-issues-guidance-regarding-ma-transactions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
