The World & I Online Magazine, ONline Archive and Educational Resource  
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library
Username:   Password:      Subscribe Now   Register   About Us | Contact Us | FAQs      
The World & I Archive Peoples of the World Book Reviews Worldwide Folktales Fathers of Faith
Search  
Sort by: Results Listed:
Date Range:    Advanced Search

The World & I Magazine
 
Current Issue
The Arts
Life
Natural Science
Culture
Book World
Modern Thought
  Resources
American Waves
Book Reviews
Fathers of Faith
Footsteps of Lincoln
Millennial Moments
Peoples of the World
Profiles in Character
Traveling the Globe
Writers and Writing

The Case Against State Takeover Statutes


Article # : 17188 

Section : MODERN THOUGHT
Issue Date : 12 / 1990  3,775 Words
Author : Jeffrey Gordon
Jeffrey Gordon is a professor of law at Columbia University. Among his specialization are corporate legal theory and mergers and acquisitions.

       Pennsylvania's adoption in April 1990 of the nation's most expansive antitakeover law was an important moment in a several-year period of more and more inventive state legislative efforts to suppress hostile takeover bids. The Pennsylvania statute is especially interesting because it exposes the uncertain rationale and the contradictory impulses that lead to legislative action in the takeover area.
       
        The story behind the Pennsylvania statute fits into a well-defined pattern. One particular Pennsylvania corporation, Armstrong World Industries, was under siege from the Belzberg family of Canada, well-known takeover entrepreneurs who had in the past accepted greenmail - a premium price offered by the target company to buy back a block of stock in exchange for the bidder withdrawing from a takeover quest. In years past, Pennsylvania had seen the loss of other important firms. Gulf Oil, once a leading corporate citizen of Pittsburgh, had fallen to Chevron Oil after escaping the clutches of T. Boone Pickens, and, in the resulting consolidation of executive functions, Pittsburgh was the loser. Other leading firms, Koppers (Pittsburgh) and Pennwalt (Philadelphia), had fallen after bitter battles. So when the Belzbergs made their run for Armstrong, Armstrong management made a run for the state legislature and, with the help of labor support, obtained passage of an antitakeover statute to protect their conception of Pennsylvania's interest from outside incursion. In most of the forty-two states that now have antitakeover laws, the legislative story has been very similar.
       
        NOXIOUS BREW
       
        The Pennsylvania legislature concocted a particularly noxious brew ... (2000 of 24078 Characters)
Read Full Article

Copyright © 2004 The World & I Online. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy