Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Charles K. Whitehead Cornell Law School.

Published bySydney Marsh Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Charles K. Whitehead Cornell Law School."— Presentation transcript:

1 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Charles K. Whitehead Cornell Law School

2 Does choice of law influence whether an express pro- or anti-sandbagging provision is included in an acquisition contract? Or, as a compromise, leaving the contract silent? Question

3 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging States Contract Approach: Connecticut Delaware Florida Illinois Indiana Massachusetts Michigan Missouri Montana New Hampshire New Mexico New York: CBS Inc. v. Ziff-Davis Publ’g Co., 553 N.E.2d 997, 1000-01 (N.Y. 1990). See also Galli v. Metz, 973 F.2d 145, 150 (2d Cir. 1992); Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 500 F.3d 171, 186 (2d Cir. 2007); Gusmao v. GMT Grp., Inc., 2008 WL 2980039, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2008). Tort Approach:

4 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging States Contract Approach: Connecticut Delaware Florida Illinois Indiana Massachusetts Michigan Missouri Montana New Hampshire New Mexico New York Pennsylvania West Virginia Wisconsin Tort Approach:

5 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging States Contract Approach: Connecticut Delaware Florida Illinois Indiana Massachusetts Michigan Missouri Montana New Hampshire New Mexico New York Pennsylvania West Virginia Wisconsin Tort Approach: California: Kazerouni v. De Satnick, 228 Cal. App. 3d 871, 873-74 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).

6 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging States Contract Approach: Connecticut Delaware Florida Illinois Indiana Massachusetts Michigan Missouri Montana New Hampshire New Mexico New York Pennsylvania West Virginia Wisconsin Tort Approach: California Colorado Kansas Maryland Minnesota Texas

7 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Governing Law (1) ELFs (2A) Pro-Sandbagging (2B) Anti-Sandbagging (2C) Silent Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) All24612450.493.711345.9 California231565.214.3730.4 Anti- Sandbagging291655.213.41241.4 Delaware1266551.643.25745.2 New York492244.924.12551.0

8 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Governing Law (1) ELFs (2A) Pro-Sandbagging (2B) Anti-Sandbagging (2C) Silent Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) All24612450.493.711345.9 California231565.214.3730.4 Anti- Sandbagging291655.213.41241.4 Delaware1266551.643.25745.2 New York492244.924.12551.0

9 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Governing Law (1) ELFs (2A) Pro-Sandbagging (2B) Anti-Sandbagging (2C) Silent Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) All24612450.493.711345.9 California231565.214.3730.4 Anti- Sandbagging291655.213.41241.4 Delaware1266551.643.25745.2 New York492244.924.12551.0

10 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Governing Law (1) ELFs (2A) Pro-Sandbagging (2B) Anti-Sandbagging (2C) Silent Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) All24612450.493.711345.9 California231565.214.3730.4 Anti- Sandbagging291655.213.41241.4 Delaware1266551.643.25745.2 New York492244.924.12551.0

11 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Anti-Sandbagging Jurisdictions

12 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Governing Law (1) ELFs (2A) Pro-Sandbagging (2B) Anti-Sandbagging (2C) Silent Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) All24612450.493.711345.9 California231565.214.3730.4 Anti- Sandbagging291655.213.41241.4 Delaware1266551.643.25745.2 New York492244.924.12551.0

13 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Governing Law (1) ELFs (2A) Pro-Sandbagging (2B) Anti-Sandbagging (2C) Silent Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) All24612450.493.711345.9 California231565.214.3730.4 Anti- Sandbagging291655.213.41241.4 Delaware1266551.643.25745.2 New York492244.924.12551.0

14 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Governing Law (1) ELFs (2A) Pro-Sandbagging (2B) Anti-Sandbagging (2C) Silent Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) All24612450.493.711345.9 California231565.214.3730.4 Anti- Sandbagging291655.213.41241.4 Delaware1266551.643.25745.2 New York492244.924.12551.0

15 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Delaware and New York

16 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions

17 Governing Law (1) ELFs (2A) Pro-Sandbagging (2B) Anti-Sandbagging (2C) Silent Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) All24612450.493.711345.9 California231565.214.3730.4 Anti- Sandbagging291655.213.41241.4 Delaware1266551.643.25745.2 New York492244.924.12551.0

18 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Governing Law (1) ELFs (2A) Pro-Sandbagging (2B) Anti-Sandbagging (2C) Silent Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) All24612450.493.711345.9 California231565.214.3730.4 Anti- Sandbagging291655.213.41241.4 Delaware1266551.643.25745.2 New York492244.924.12551.0

19 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Governing Law (1) ELFs (2A) Pro-Sandbagging (2B) Anti-Sandbagging (2C) Silent Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) All24612450.493.711345.9 California231565.214.3730.4 Anti- Sandbagging291655.213.41241.4 Delaware1266551.643.25745.2 New York492244.924.12551.0

20 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Governing Law (1) ELFs (2A) Pro-Sandbagging (2B) Anti-Sandbagging (2C) Silent Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) All24612450.493.711345.9 California231565.214.3730.4 Anti- Sandbagging291655.213.41241.4 Delaware1266551.643.25745.2 New York492244.924.12551.0

21 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Governing Law (1) ELFs (2A) Pro-Sandbagging (2B) Anti-Sandbagging (2C) Silent Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%) All24612450.493.711345.9 California231565.214.3730.4 Anti- Sandbagging291655.213.41241.4 Delaware1266551.643.25745.2 New York492244.924.12551.0

22 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Anti-Sandbagging Jurisdictions

23 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Provisions Delaware New York

24 On its face, a separating effect in anti-sandbagging jurisdictions and a pooling effect in pro-sandbagging jurisdictions. Choice of law can affect the substantive outcome of silence as a compromise position. But – apparent consistency in the use of pro- and anti-sandbagging provisions, and silence, regardless of the governing law. Perhaps reflecting standard practice and forms? Uncertainty regarding the default rule? Concluding Thoughts and Questions

25 Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Charles K. Whitehead Cornell Law School

Download ppt "Pro- and Anti-Sandbagging Charles K. Whitehead Cornell Law School."

Similar presentations

Trends in Number of High School Graduates: National

Trends in Number of High School Graduates: National
U.S. States Abbreviations Directions: Type the state abbreviation in the box on each slide. www.ESLAmerica.US “The English language website where everything.

U.S. States Abbreviations Directions: Type the state abbreviation in the box on each slide. “The English language website where everything.
PARTISAN CONTROL AND STATE DECISIONS ABOUT OBAMACARE FULL GO STATES (n = 22) Arkansas Michigan CALIFORNIA MINNESOTA COLORADO NEVADA CONNECTICUT New Hampshire.

PARTISAN CONTROL AND STATE DECISIONS ABOUT OBAMACARE FULL GO STATES (n = 22) Arkansas Michigan CALIFORNIA MINNESOTA COLORADO NEVADA CONNECTICUT New Hampshire.
Hwy Ops Div1 THE GREAT KAHUNA AWARD !!! TEA 2004 CONFERENCE, MOBILE, AL OCTOBER 09-11, 2004 OFFICE OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION HIPA-30.

Hwy Ops Div1 THE GREAT KAHUNA AWARD !!! TEA 2004 CONFERENCE, MOBILE, AL OCTOBER 09-11, 2004 OFFICE OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION HIPA-30.
The West` Washington Idaho 1 Montana Oregon California 3 4 Nevada Utah

The West` Washington Idaho 1 Montana Oregon California 3 4 Nevada Utah
Fifty Nifty United States

Fifty Nifty United States
TOTAL CASES FILED IN MAINE PER 1,000 POPULATION CALENDAR YEARS 1999 - 2009 FILINGS PER 1,000 POPULATION This chart shows bankruptcy filings relative to.

TOTAL CASES FILED IN MAINE PER 1,000 POPULATION CALENDAR YEARS FILINGS PER 1,000 POPULATION This chart shows bankruptcy filings relative to.
5 Year Total LIHEAP Block Grant Allotment (FY 2003-2007) While LIHEAP is intended to assist low-income families with their year-round home energy needs,

5 Year Total LIHEAP Block Grant Allotment (FY ) While LIHEAP is intended to assist low-income families with their year-round home energy needs,
BINARY CODING. Alabama Arizona California Connecticut Florida Hawaii Illinois Iowa Kentucky Maine Massachusetts Minnesota Missouri 0 Nebraska New Hampshire.

BINARY CODING. Alabama Arizona California Connecticut Florida Hawaii Illinois Iowa Kentucky Maine Massachusetts Minnesota Missouri 0 Nebraska New Hampshire.
U.S. Civil War Map On a current map of the U.S. identify and label the Union States, the Confederate States, and U.S. territories. Create a map key and.

U.S. Civil War Map On a current map of the U.S. identify and label the Union States, the Confederate States, and U.S. territories. Create a map key and.
Hwy Ops Div1 THE GREAT KAHUNA AWARD !!! TEA 2003 CONFERENCE, BURLINGTON, VT SEPTEMBER 3-5, 2003 OFFICE OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION HIPA-30.

Hwy Ops Div1 THE GREAT KAHUNA AWARD !!! TEA 2003 CONFERENCE, BURLINGTON, VT SEPTEMBER 3-5, 2003 OFFICE OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION HIPA-30.
This chart compares the percentage of cases filed in Maine under chapter 13 with the national average between 1999 and 2009. As a percent of total filings,

This chart compares the percentage of cases filed in Maine under chapter 13 with the national average between 1999 and As a percent of total filings,
Fasten your seatbelts we’re off on a cross country road trip!

Fasten your seatbelts we’re off on a cross country road trip!
Map Review. California Kentucky Alabama.

Map Review. California Kentucky Alabama.
Judicial Circuits. If You Live In This State This Is Your Judicial Circuit Alabama11th Circuit Alaska 9th Circuit Arkansas 8th Circuit Arizona 9th Circuit.

Judicial Circuits. If You Live In This State This Is Your Judicial Circuit Alabama11th Circuit Alaska 9th Circuit Arkansas 8th Circuit Arizona 9th Circuit.
1. AFL-CIO What percentage of the funds received by Alabama K-12 public schools in school year 2010-2011 was provided by the state of Alabama? a)44% b)53%

1. AFL-CIO What percentage of the funds received by Alabama K-12 public schools in school year was provided by the state of Alabama? a)44% b)53%
The United States.

The United States.
Directions: Label Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia--- then color.

Directions: Label Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia--- then color.
 As a group, we thought it be interesting to see how many of our peers drop out of school.  Since in the United States education is so important, we.

 As a group, we thought it be interesting to see how many of our peers drop out of school.  Since in the United States education is so important, we.
CHAPTER 7 FILINGS IN MAINE CALENDAR YEARS 1999 – 2009 CALENDAR YEAR CHAPTER 7 FILINGS This chart shows total case filings in Maine for calendar years 1999.

CHAPTER 7 FILINGS IN MAINE CALENDAR YEARS 1999 – 2009 CALENDAR YEAR CHAPTER 7 FILINGS This chart shows total case filings in Maine for calendar years 1999.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google