Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChan, Jonathan
dc.contributor.authorPetrin, Martin
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-07T16:26:30Z
dc.date.available2025-03-07T16:26:30Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.identifier.citationJonathan Chan & Martin Petrin, Lost-Premium Damages in M&A: Delaware’s New Legal Landscape, 42 Yale Journal on Regulation 33 (2025).en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/18517
dc.descriptionVol. 42:33en_US
dc.description.abstractIn the event of a buyer’s willful breach of a merger agreement, lost-premium provisions allow a target corporation to claim damages that include the lost premium or economic entitlements that its stockholders would have received had the deal closed. In the recent Crispo v. Musk decision the Delaware Chancery Court held these provisions to be unenforceable under the anti-penalty doctrine. In this Article we challenge the analysis in Crispo by arguing that lost-premium provisions are doctrinally defensible, economically sensible, and supported by policy considerations. Lost-premium provisions became enforceable in Delaware from August 1, 2024, following amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law. But the issue may crop up again in other jurisdictions. This Article explains why courts in other states both can and should uphold lost-premium provisions.en_US
dc.publisherYale Journal on Regulationen_US
dc.subjectCrispo v. Musk; Anti-penalty doctrine; Willful breachen_US
dc.titleLost-Premium Damages in M&A: Delaware’s New Legal Landscapeen_US
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.dateFOA2025-03-07T16:26:31Z
refterms.dateFirstOnline2025


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
01.Petrin-Chan-Bulletin-Article.pdf
Size:
286.7Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record