Practical Lessons to Be Learned Concerning Poison Pills in the Chancery Court's Decision in 'Air Products v. Airgas'

Article
Donald J. Wolfe, Jr., Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman, Jr.

The Delaware Supreme Court first upheld the legality of a shareholder rights plan, or "poison pill," as a takeover defense in its 1985 decision in Moran v. Household International Inc. While also finding that the target board would remain subject to enhanced judicial scrutiny in determining whether and when to redeem the rights and withdraw the defense when confronted with a hostile acquisition bid, the contours of that constraint were left largely undefined. As a result, corporate law practitioners and scholars have hotly debated the topic over the course of the ensuing 25 years. During that same time, there has been no lack of challenges to the use of the pill, but the critical question has remained unresolved: how long can a board maintain a pill in the face of a structurally noncoercive offer that it deems inadequately priced?

Related Professionals

Media Contact

Lauren Kornsey, Senior Manager, Marketing and Business Development

About Potter Anderson

Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP is one of the largest and most highly regarded Delaware law firms, providing legal services to regional, national, and international clients. With more than 90 attorneys, the firm’s practice is centered on corporate law, corporate litigation, intellectual property, commercial litigation, bankruptcy, labor and employment, and real estate.

Jump to Page

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.