Devils in the Details: An Essay Examining the Significance of Jurisdictional Default Rules in the Mergers and Acquisitions Context

Authors

Adrian Szycowski

Abstract

Merger and acquisition deals are complex multi-party transactions that may require years, millions of dollars, and large teams of accountants, bankers, and lawyers to close. Unfortunately, many of these transactions never reach that stage. In an effort to understand these multifaceted deals, Adrian Szycowski analyzes one of the many factors in a M&A deal. Using state statutes, case opinions, law journal articles, law firm client alerts, and other sources, Szycowski examines the interplay of jurisdictional default rules with common contract provisions found in every M&A deal. After setting a brief foundation of mergers and acquisitions, Szycowski reviews how Delaware, New York, and California approach and treat sandbagging, waiver of jury trial, and non-compete provisions. He also puts forward several alternative theories to help explain the discrepancy in the approaches of the aforementioned jurisdictions. Ultimately, Szycowski finds that Delaware and New York are generally pro-buyer jurisdictions while California is pro-seller/pro-worker.

Recommended Citation

Adrian Szycowski, Devils in the Details: An Essay Examining the Significance of Jurisdictional Default Rules in the Mergers and Acquisitions Context, 4 Emory Corp. Governance & Accountability Rev. 441 (2017).
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/ecgar/vol4/iss2/8