Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

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


Ads by Google