【Abstract】
A Legal Study on Defensive Tactics against Hostile Takeover : Focusing on the Delaware Court's Jurisprudence
Kim Doo Hwan
In the U. S. the Unocal test for determining whether a board of directors has met its burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of its actions as follows: First, a reasonableness test, which is satisfied by a demonstration that the board of directors had reasonable grounds for believing that a danger to corporate policy and effectiveness existed, and Second, a proportionality test, which is satisfied by a demonstration that the board of directors' defensive response was reasonable in relation to the threat posed.
In itself, the Unocal test is a straightforward analysis of whether what a board did was reasonable. But Unocal's purpose and application have been cloaked in! a larger, rather ill-fitting doctrinal garment. Once the court applies the Unocal test, its job is, as a technical matter, not over. If, upon applying Unocal, the court finds that the defendants have met their burden of demonstrating the substantive reasonableness of their actions, the court must then go on to apply the normal review appropriate in cases that do not implicate Unocal. In essence, the court must reimpose on the plaintiffs the burden of showing " 'by a preponderance of the evidence' " that the business judgment rule is inapplicable. Of course, the business judgment rule exists in large measure to prevent the business decisions of a board of directors from being judicially examined for their substantive reasonableness - an eventuality that has, in the Unocal context, already taken place.
With it refers from above, the author arranges, with critics, the discussion in the United States regarding the judgement standard of hostile corporate raid defensive act.
【Abstract】
A Legal Study on Defensive Tactics against Hostile Takeover : Focusing on the Delaware Court's Jurisprudence
Kim Doo Hwan
In the U. S. the Unocal test for determining whether a board of directors has met its burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of its actions as follows: First, a reasonableness test, which is satisfied by a demonstration that the board of directors had reasonable grounds for believing that a danger to corporate policy and effectiveness existed, and Second, a proportionality test, which is satisfied by a demonstration that the board of directors' defensive response was reasonable in relation to the threat posed.
In itself, the Unocal test is a straightforward analysis of whether what a board did was reasonable. But Unocal's purpose and application have been cloaked in! a larger, rather ill-fitting doctrinal garment. Once the court applies the Unocal test, its job is, as a technical matter, not over. If, upon applying Unocal, the court finds that the defendants have met their burden of demonstrating the substantive reasonableness of their actions, the court must then go on to apply the normal review appropriate in cases that do not implicate Unocal. In essence, the court must reimpose on the plaintiffs the burden of showing " 'by a preponderance of the evidence' " that the business judgment rule is inapplicable. Of course, the business judgment rule exists in large measure to prevent the business decisions of a board of directors from being judicially examined for their substantive reasonableness - an eventuality that has, in the Unocal context, already taken place.
With it refers from above, the author arranges, with critics, the discussion in the United States regarding the judgement standard of hostile corporate raid defensive act.