The Airgas situation demonstrates that continued investor engagement is needed in order to assert shareholder power in the hostile takeover setting. Popular perception holds that classified boards and poison pills are both in sharp decline, and there is some truth to this notion at large-cap US firms. However, nearly 90% of US firms have charter […]
Tag Archives | Airgas
Delaware Chancery Should Refocus
James McRitchie, 02/24/2011 ,
Governance practitioners should be aware of two very recent Delaware Chancery cases which are likely to have a significant effect upon business practices. In the first, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v. Airgas, Inc., et al and In re Airgas Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Civ. Act. Nos. 5249-CC and 5256-CC February 15, 2011, the Delaware Chancellor in […]
Bebchuk on Airgas
James McRitchie, 02/24/2011 ,
In a major decision issued last week, William Chandler of Delaware’s Court of Chancery ruled that corporate boards may use a “poison pill”—a device designed to block shareholders from considering a takeover bid—for as long a period of time as the board deems warranted. Because Delaware law governs most U.S. publicly traded firms, the decision […]