<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2011  All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh</link>
<description>Recent documents in Lawrence A. Hamermesh</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 01:35:40 PST</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>


	
		
	







<item>
<title>Who Let You into the House?</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/43</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/43</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:27:25 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>Recent Congressional corporate governance initiatives have reallocated to independent directors the functions of hiring and supervising the work of certain “gatekeepers,” and some have proposed such a reallocation with respect to general counsel, as a means to address cognitive biases and capture by senior management that may prevent inside counsel from identifying and preventing corporate misconduct. That proposal, however, does not sufficiently account for the positive effect on corporate conduct arising from a close relationship of trust and confidence between general counsel and the CEO or other senior managers. Eliminating such a relationship is likely to undermine access to internal information and the willingness of corporate actors to respond positively to counsel’s efforts to promote legal compliance. In contrast, steps short of reallocating oversight of the general counsel to independent directors are likely to promote independent judgment on the part of general counsel without unduly undermining those benefits.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Delaware Corporate Law and the Model Business Corporation Act: A Study in Symbiosis</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/42</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/42</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:43:51 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Jeffrey M. Gorris et al.</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Silos, Corporate Law, and Bankruptcy Law</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/41</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/41</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 07:31:44 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Challenge to Delaware&apos;s Preeminence in Corporate Law</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/40</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/40</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:29:50 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>This short essay suggests that the focus on federal-state jurisdictional conflict over regulation of corporate governance in the U.S. is misplaced, and that declining levels of IPO's in the U.S. should be a concern shared by lawmakers at both state and federal levels.  Those who reflexively advocate inflexible federal governance rules of wide application -- as opposed to regulatory reforms aimed carefully at unboundedly risky financial practices -- should prevail only upon a clear understanding that the potential benefits of such governance rules outweigh the risks associated with them.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Rationalizing Appraisal Standards in Compulsory Buyouts</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/39</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/39</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:42:55 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>This Article makes several contributions to the literature on Delaware appraisal law. We first argue that the "going concern value" standard adopted by the Delaware courts as the measure of "fair value" in share valuation proceedings is superior to its two main competitors, market value and third-party sale value, on grounds of both fairness and efficiency. Application of the going concern value standard has two important consequences. First, it is critical that going concern value be measured in a way that includes not only the present value of the existing assets of the corporation, but also the present value of the reinvestment opportunities available to and anticipated by the firm at the time of merger. Second, going concern value should not include the value of corporate control in a case where the merger creates control through the aggregation of previously dispersed shares. In that case, the benefits created by the aggregation of shares belong to the party that created the increased value.</p>
<p>We address differently, however, the situation where a pre-existing controlling shareholder squeezes out the minority. Our concern here is the potential for a controlling shareholder to acquire the minority shares at a price that fails to reflect the firm's going concern value. Where a controller fails to present a valid discounted cash flow analysis and relies instead on a comparable company analysis that is based solely on historical data, the minority shareholders and the court are deprived of access to projections of future free cash flows of the firm. We therefore advocate that in this situation the courts adopt a penalty default in the form of a presumption that fair value includes the value of control as reflected in comparable company acquisitions. Such a presumption is consistent with common law doctrines of fiduciary duty and the entire fairness standard, as well as adverse evidentiary inferences drawn from failure to produce relevant evidence. The controller as faithful fiduciary can avoid the proposed presumption by preparing and submitting to judicial scrutiny a valid discounted cash flow analysis. The opportunistic controller, on the other hand, is subjected to a fair value determination that amounts to third-party sale value minus synergies.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh et al.</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Institute of Delaware Corporate and Business Law New Name, New Directions</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/38</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/38</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:46:36 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Introduction: The Delaware General Corporation Law for the 21st Century</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/37</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/37</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:23:34 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>Introductory speech for the Delaware General Corporation Law for the 21st Century symposium presented at Widener Law School's Delaware campus on May 5, 2008, and the articles published in this issue of the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Loyalty&apos;s Core Demand: The Defining Role of Good Faith in Corporation Law</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/36</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/36</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:49:44 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>The duties owed by independent directors of large corporations to monitor the corporation’s affairs have never had more political salience. Given the Enron-era debacles, the recent meltdown in our nation’s financial sector, the dependence of workers on equity investments to secure their retirements, the globalization of American corporate law principles, and the complexity of managing corporations with international operations, the legal standards used to evaluate whether directors have complied with their fiduciary duties will be a subject of growing international policy interest. This article examines an important dimension of that issue by examining the role of good faith in corporate law, and its use as the definition of the state of mind with which a director must act to comply with the fiduciary duty of loyalty. In particular, this article employs an historical, etymological, and policy-oriented analysis to address the question of whether the obligation of directors to act in good faith is a separate, free-standing fiduciary duty, or a fundamental aspect of the core duty of loyalty. We conclude, consistent with the Delaware Supreme Court’s recent decision in Stone v. Ritter, that the basic definition of the duty of loyalty is the obligation to act in good faith to advance the best interests of the corporation. What this article also establishes is that the duty of loyalty is much broader than the duty to avoid acting for personal financial advantage. The duty of loyalty also precludes acting for unlawful purposes, and affirmatively requires directors to make a good faith effort to monitor the corporation’s affairs and compliance with law. Finally, we demonstrate the critical policy implication resulting from Stone v. Ritter, which is that an independent director who is accused of having failed in her monitoring duties may only be held liable if a court finds that she breached her duty of loyalty by consciously failing to make a good faith effort to comply with her duty of care. By requiring a finding of bad faith before imposing liability on an independent director, the corporate law protects the policy interests underlying the business judgment role from erosion.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Leo E. Strine et al.</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Singer Remedy Five Years Later</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/34</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/34</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:26:04 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Going-Private Mergers After UOP</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/33</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/33</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:24:45 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Prayer in the Public Schools</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/32</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/32</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:23:26 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh et al.</author>


<category>Education Law</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Defensive Techniques in Proxy Contests</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/31</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/31</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:21:53 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Our Right to Bear Arms: A Response</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/30</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/30</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:19:13 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Civil Rights</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Delaware Dissolution Statutes: A Case Study</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/29</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/29</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:18:01 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh et al.</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Shareholder Rights By-Law: Doubts From Delaware</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/28</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/28</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:16:35 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>ACLU: Defending the Bill of Rights</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/27</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/27</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:15:25 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh et al.</author>


<category>Civil Rights</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Why Students Learn Delaware Corporate Law?</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/26</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/26</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:51:03 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Brief of Professors Lawrence A. Hamermesh and Mary Brigid McManamon as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners CA Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Felzen, 525 U.S. 315 (S. Ct. 1998) (No. 97-1732)</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/25</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/25</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:49:55 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh et al.</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Lawyer Responsibilities in the New Disclosure &amp; Corporate Governance Regime</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/24</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/24</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:46:11 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Corporations</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and the Politicization of Religion</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/23</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/lawrence_hamermesh/23</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:28:12 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Lawrence A. Hamermesh</author>


<category>Education Law</category>

</item>





</channel>
</rss>

