M & A Law Prof Blog

Editor: Brian JM Quinn
Boston College Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Friday, July 10, 2009

Hamline -- Director of Business Law Center

Hamline University School of Law (HUSL) seeks a founding Director for its new center in Business Law.   Building upon HUSL’s existing strengths, the Director will have substantial opportunity to develop the center’s focus and direction. Current curricular offerings include a full range of foundational Business Law courses, as well as a small business clinic, externship opportunities and an array of joint degree options, including the J.D./MBA degree. 

This is a tenure-track position, with faculty rank and commensurate expectations regarding teaching and scholarship. 

Candidates must hold a J.D., have demonstrated excellence in Business Law (ideally, in both academic and practice contexts) and have the commitment, creativity, organizational abilities, drive and interpersonal skills necessary to build and lead the new center as a complementary collaborator with HUSL’s nationally acclaimed Dispute Resolution Institute (DRI) and Health Law Institute (HLI), as well as with Hamline University’s graduate schools, particularly the School of Business.

Application materials include a cover letter and resume or curriculum vitae. 

Send inquiries or applications to: 

Professor Tom I. Romero, II 
Chair of Faculty Appointments 
Hamline University School of Law 
1536 Hewitt Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104 
E-mail: 
tromero01@hamline.edu 

Complete job description is
here.

-bjmq

July 10, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

More on Training Lawyers

Over at Akron Law Café, Professor Stefan Padfield blogs about my remarks on training transactional lawyers given at the AALS's midyear meeting focusing on business law.  (Usha Rodrigues previously commented on these remarks over at TheConglomerate).   

 

Unrelated to my remarks, there’s been a flurry of recent posts related to lawyer training and the utility of law schools.  Several of these have been in reponse to this post by Paul Lippe.  See here and here (same post, different comments), here, here and here.  Gordon Smith has been thoughtfully commenting on the topic for quite some time (for a small sample, see here, hereherehere and here).

 

Many critics of the current law school model point to medical school as the way things should be done.  I have to say, I don't find atempts to analogize law school to medical school persuasive. Among other things, to get into medical school, a student has to have already taken a significant number of substantive courses. For example, most medical schools require applicants to have completed at least one full year of each of Biology and Physics and two full years of Chemistry (including Organic Chemistry), together with associated lab work. In law school, many students are, in effect, starting from scratch, with no prior legal or business training or experience. As a result, more substantive training is necessary, leaving less time for practical training. In addition, those holding medical school up as a model of hands-on practical training often skip over the fact that medical school is four years, the first two of which are devoted to teaching substantive courses.

 

MAW

July 10, 2009 in Lawyers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

New GM Press Conference

The GM 363 transaction will close this morning.  Listen in to the webcast/press conference announcing the New GM at 9:00AM (ET).  The call-in number to listen is:

800 230-1093   (U.S.)
+1- 612 332-0107  (international/caller-paid)
No access code is required

The press conference will also be available via webcast (live and archived).

-bjmq

July 10, 2009 in Transactions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Get the DGCL on Your Blackberry

Have you ever been at a meeting and need a provision of the DGCL with no statute at hand?

 

Well, the Delaware law firm of Potter Anderson has come to the rescue with a very cool (well cool to a certain group of people), free service:

 

eDelaware provides instant access to Delaware corporate and alternative entity statutes, Articles 8 and 9 of the UCC, as well as pertinent case summaries, all on your BlackBerry smartphone.

 

You can sign up for this free resource here.

 

MAW

July 9, 2009 in Delaware | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Broadcom-Emulex Litigation and a Collection of Strine Musings

In the Broadcom-Emulex battle that was before Vice Chancellor Strine earlier this week, Vice Chancellor Strine took Broadcom to task for “punking out” by walking away from the litigation and structuring its offer in a way that prevents the court from ruling on the just-say-no defense.  Rather than make their offer conditioned on the board pulling the poison pill, Broadcom conditioned its offer on the board accepting a friendly deal.  Those, as Strine noted in an office conference (transcript) among the parties are two different animals.  The former being an interesting and live, judiciable question and the latter looking akin to “a TW Services or SWT?  It’s always messed up, because one was the plaintiff.  Right?”

Of course, there were more “Strine-isms” from the office conference.  By this time, it’s clear that Broadcom got the Vice Chancellor’s nose out of joint for wasting the court’s time.  The court is offering to allow defendants to continue their discovery even though Broadcom dropped out of the litigation after it completed its discovery.

Strine:  Get me your subpoena.  You guys come back to me if Broadcom changes its approach.  We will take stock at the end of next week.  I expect you all to speak with each other before you come back to me within the plaintiff camp.  You know, talk seriously.  Like I said, I am sensitive to the amount of time and effort on both sides that – of all the lawyers in the room, and the lost time with family, and lost sleep, and time spent in going through airport security, which is a brilliant thing.  When are they going to end the liquid ban?  I swear, I think you could get – if you could find a – somebody should run for president.  The idea is like any person – any employee of the airlines can shoot somebody if they have more than four liquid containers on their tray and  -- you could get elected on that.  At least you would have a very high percentage vote among air travelers.


The Vice Chancellor offering his opinion on the incentives facing the named plaintiff in the case who owns exactly one share of Emulex stock:

Strine: … And that’s why I’m telling you all I’m more interested, terms of expedition, if we get past this, in the supermajority bylaw.  But you want to be serious with yourselves and the clients.  I’m not talking about Mr. Middleton.  I’m not saying he doesn’t have, technically, standing, but in the room we – I could make him happy, you know, even with – I could take it.

Mr. Smith:  A Happy Meal would make him happy.

Strine:  I could – I could double the 11-dollar offer and make Mr. Middleton happy.  And he would be – the Middleton Fund would have a great return for the year.  And I mean – he could go to – I could recommend if he came here, he could go to Libby’s three days in a row, and he could eat well.  But after that, he would be out of skin in the game.

This transaction has been a battle from the very beginning.  Emulex has characterized the Broadcom in a negative light, even filing suit in a California court -- referring back to its unpleasantness with a previous CEO.  And now, Broadcom has walked away from its opportunity to force the Emulex board to pull its pill by dropping out of the litigation and forming its offer in a way that its lawyers should know does provide the court an opportunity to rule in favor of the plaintiffs left behind. 

For the record, given that Emulex adopted its pill and other defensive measures in response to early offers from Broadcom and not on a clear day, it’s possible that the Vice Chancellor could have ordered Emulex to pull its pill.  But now we’ll never know.

The Deal Professor has a good run down of the legal issues in this case.

 -bjmq


Update:  Broadcom drops its bid and punks out completely.


July 9, 2009 in Delaware, Hostiles, Litigation, Takeover Defenses | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

FDIC Approves Proposed Policy Statement on Investor Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions

On July 2, the FDIC released a Proposed Policy Statement on Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions. The purpose of the release is to provide private investors, including private equity funds, with guidelines regarding the terms and conditions of investments or acquisitions of assets and liabilities of failed banks or thrifts.

 

Proskauer has the full story here

 

MAW

July 7, 2009 in Regulation | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

A Hostile "Mini-Wave"?

Steven Davidoff over at the Deal Professor has been doing a great job following the in's and out's of the legal issues related to the ongoing NRG/Exelon battle so I haven't spent much time on this trasnaction (herehere, here, and here).  Fortune magazine is pitching in with a a nice "inside the boardroom" view of the transaction as well.  One thing appears clear from the Fortune piece is that both parties knew from the get go that the $8.5 billion poison put would be a factor from the very beginning.   Nothwitstanding that potential roadblock, Exelon has pursued NRG relentlessly since last October.  Now it is all coming to a head in a familiar dance.  Exelon is purusing a proxy fight  and seeking to oust the NRG board.  NRG's board has been urging shareholders to resist Exelon's "inadequate" offer

All of this has started me thinking about the hostile takeover.  Just a year or two ago, people thought that the combination of staggered boards and the poison pill meant the end of the hostile takeover.  However, now that market capitilizations have fallen 60% of the all-time highs, there is some life in the hostile acquisition model.  The EMC/NetApp/Data Domain contest is an example as is the CF Industries/Agrium transaction.   This new "mini-wave" of hostile acquisitions differs from the hostile activity of the 1980s, though.  This time around the acquirers are strategic buyers with cash and not LBO funds.  For the time being leverage appears to be dead.  One wonders whether the nature of the buyers will affect the way these hostile transactions are received in the marketplace and by the courts.

-bjmq


July 7, 2009 in Hostiles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, July 6, 2009

What Law Schools Should Teach Future Transactional Lawyers

I just posted the first draft of an edited version of my remarks given at the 2009 mid-year meeting of the AALS Conference on Business Associates.  It's available for download here.

Here's the abstract:

  
Since at least the 1980’s, law schools have been chided for doing a poor job at teaching skills. This criticism has been accompanied by pressure to increase their emphasis on skills training. The pressure increased with the publication of the McCrate Report in 1992, and then again with the publication of the Carnegie Report in 2007. But is the underlying premise correct?

This article is an edited version of my remarks given at the 2009 mid-year meeting of the AALS Conference on Business Associates. In those remarks, I respond to the questions “Are law schools teaching students adequate transactional skills?” and “From the standpoint of preparing students for a transactional practice, what would you like to see law schools change?”

To answer these questions, I first examine what exactly people might mean when they refer to skills. After describing different categories of skills, I discuss which of these law schools can and should teach, and which should be left to law firms. Finally, I share some thoughts on how law schools can change to better prepare their students for a transactional practice.

MAW

July 6, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Help Wanted: Vice Chancellor, Republicans Only

Delaware's Judicial Nominating Committee recently posted a job opening for a Vice Chancellor to replace retiring Vice Chancellor Stephen P. Lamb (Huntsman v Hexion, San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, among many others) Delaware's courts are required to maintain political balance, so a successful applicant for this $174k job must be a member of the Republican Party.    

Already the Delaware press is handicapping the race.   Some names already in the press: J. Travis Laster,  Joel Friedlander, Robert Saunders, Richard Forsten, and the honorable Mary Miller Johnston, among others.


-bjmq 

July 6, 2009 in Delaware | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

GM 363 Sale Approved