合并协议中特拉华州法律选择的频率增加及其对学术研究的影响

Juliet P. Kostritsky, W. Woyczynski, Kyle Chen, Ben P. Robertson
{"title":"合并协议中特拉华州法律选择的频率增加及其对学术研究的影响","authors":"Juliet P. Kostritsky, W. Woyczynski, Kyle Chen, Ben P. Robertson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2469414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The legal community has long recognized that business corporations heavily favor Delaware as the state of incorporation. However, a recent study suggested that despite Delaware’s prominence as the place of incorporation, companies “flee” from Delaware with respect to both choice of law and forum, and instead prefer New York. In Professor Eisenberg and Miller’s study, while 181 acquirers were incorporated in Delaware, only 135 chose Delaware law, and while there were only five acquirers that were incorporated in New York, 63 merger contracts chose New York law. Building on Professor Eisenberg and Miller’s work, we study a data of 343 merger and acquisitions contracted on between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011. We find that companies only display a New York bias when companies have connections to New York. In other words, a company’s place of incorporation, place of business, and merger attorneys’ locale substantially influence the choice of law for merger deals. Our study shows that by eliminating acquirers that are domiciled — either incorporated or having a primary place of business — in New York, as well as eliminating merger attorneys that have presences in New York, the data reflects little New York bias.Specifically, when the acquirer has no place of business in New York, only 12.23 percent of the merger deals chose New York law. Going one-step further, out of the ninety merger deals that did not have any New York connection, only 8.89 percent chose New York law. By eliminating all New York connections, the study shows that companies are much less likely to choose New York law. Moreover, the data reflects that a Delaware incorporated acquirer is more likely to choose Delaware law to govern their merger deals than any other state law — 64.37 percent of Delaware incorporated acquirers chose Delaware law, whereas only 14.94 percent chose New York law. Indeed, our data shows that when we follow the methodology and use the assumptions of the Eisenberg and Miller study in constructing our data set, the frequency with which Delaware law was chosen to govern the merger deal had substantially increased when compared to the frequency with which Delaware law was chosen by the parties in the Eisenberg and Miller study. Our results further nullify the premise that Delaware corporations are engaged in a flight to choose New York law in their merger agreements.","PeriodicalId":437920,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Corporations eJournal","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Increased Frequency for Delaware Choice of Law in Merger Agreements and the Implications for Scholarly Research\",\"authors\":\"Juliet P. Kostritsky, W. Woyczynski, Kyle Chen, Ben P. Robertson\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2469414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The legal community has long recognized that business corporations heavily favor Delaware as the state of incorporation. However, a recent study suggested that despite Delaware’s prominence as the place of incorporation, companies “flee” from Delaware with respect to both choice of law and forum, and instead prefer New York. In Professor Eisenberg and Miller’s study, while 181 acquirers were incorporated in Delaware, only 135 chose Delaware law, and while there were only five acquirers that were incorporated in New York, 63 merger contracts chose New York law. Building on Professor Eisenberg and Miller’s work, we study a data of 343 merger and acquisitions contracted on between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011. We find that companies only display a New York bias when companies have connections to New York. In other words, a company’s place of incorporation, place of business, and merger attorneys’ locale substantially influence the choice of law for merger deals. Our study shows that by eliminating acquirers that are domiciled — either incorporated or having a primary place of business — in New York, as well as eliminating merger attorneys that have presences in New York, the data reflects little New York bias.Specifically, when the acquirer has no place of business in New York, only 12.23 percent of the merger deals chose New York law. Going one-step further, out of the ninety merger deals that did not have any New York connection, only 8.89 percent chose New York law. By eliminating all New York connections, the study shows that companies are much less likely to choose New York law. Moreover, the data reflects that a Delaware incorporated acquirer is more likely to choose Delaware law to govern their merger deals than any other state law — 64.37 percent of Delaware incorporated acquirers chose Delaware law, whereas only 14.94 percent chose New York law. Indeed, our data shows that when we follow the methodology and use the assumptions of the Eisenberg and Miller study in constructing our data set, the frequency with which Delaware law was chosen to govern the merger deal had substantially increased when compared to the frequency with which Delaware law was chosen by the parties in the Eisenberg and Miller study. Our results further nullify the premise that Delaware corporations are engaged in a flight to choose New York law in their merger agreements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":437920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Corporations eJournal\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Corporations eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2469414\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Public Law - Corporations eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2469414","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法律界早就认识到,商业公司非常倾向于将特拉华州作为注册州。然而,最近的一项研究表明,尽管特拉华州作为公司注册地的地位很突出,但公司在法律和法院的选择上都“逃离”特拉华州,而更喜欢纽约。在艾森伯格教授和米勒教授的研究中,181家收购者在特拉华州注册,只有135家选择了特拉华州法律,而只有5家收购者在纽约注册,63家合并合同选择了纽约法律。在艾森伯格教授和米勒教授的研究基础上,我们研究了2011年1月1日至2011年6月30日期间签订的343项并购合同的数据。我们发现,只有与纽约有联系的公司才会表现出纽约偏见。换句话说,公司的注册地、营业地和并购律师的所在地实质上影响了并购交易的法律选择。我们的研究表明,通过剔除在纽约注册的收购方(无论是注册公司还是主要营业地),以及剔除在纽约有业务的并购律师,数据反映出的纽约偏见很小。具体来说,当收购方在纽约没有营业地时,只有12.23%的合并交易选择了纽约法律。再进一步,在与纽约没有任何联系的90宗合并交易中,只有8.89%选择了纽约法律。研究表明,通过消除与纽约的所有联系,公司选择纽约法律的可能性大大降低。此外,数据反映特拉华州的合并收购者更有可能选择特拉华州的法律来管理他们的合并交易,而不是任何其他州的法律——64.37%的特拉华州合并收购者选择特拉华州的法律,而只有14.94%的人选择纽约州的法律。事实上,我们的数据表明,当我们遵循艾森伯格和米勒研究的方法并使用艾森伯格和米勒研究的假设来构建我们的数据集时,与艾森伯格和米勒研究中各方选择特拉华州法律的频率相比,选择特拉华州法律来管理合并交易的频率大大增加。我们的结果进一步否定了特拉华州公司在其合并协议中选择纽约州法律的前提。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Increased Frequency for Delaware Choice of Law in Merger Agreements and the Implications for Scholarly Research
The legal community has long recognized that business corporations heavily favor Delaware as the state of incorporation. However, a recent study suggested that despite Delaware’s prominence as the place of incorporation, companies “flee” from Delaware with respect to both choice of law and forum, and instead prefer New York. In Professor Eisenberg and Miller’s study, while 181 acquirers were incorporated in Delaware, only 135 chose Delaware law, and while there were only five acquirers that were incorporated in New York, 63 merger contracts chose New York law. Building on Professor Eisenberg and Miller’s work, we study a data of 343 merger and acquisitions contracted on between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011. We find that companies only display a New York bias when companies have connections to New York. In other words, a company’s place of incorporation, place of business, and merger attorneys’ locale substantially influence the choice of law for merger deals. Our study shows that by eliminating acquirers that are domiciled — either incorporated or having a primary place of business — in New York, as well as eliminating merger attorneys that have presences in New York, the data reflects little New York bias.Specifically, when the acquirer has no place of business in New York, only 12.23 percent of the merger deals chose New York law. Going one-step further, out of the ninety merger deals that did not have any New York connection, only 8.89 percent chose New York law. By eliminating all New York connections, the study shows that companies are much less likely to choose New York law. Moreover, the data reflects that a Delaware incorporated acquirer is more likely to choose Delaware law to govern their merger deals than any other state law — 64.37 percent of Delaware incorporated acquirers chose Delaware law, whereas only 14.94 percent chose New York law. Indeed, our data shows that when we follow the methodology and use the assumptions of the Eisenberg and Miller study in constructing our data set, the frequency with which Delaware law was chosen to govern the merger deal had substantially increased when compared to the frequency with which Delaware law was chosen by the parties in the Eisenberg and Miller study. Our results further nullify the premise that Delaware corporations are engaged in a flight to choose New York law in their merger agreements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信