DealLawyers.com Blog

We’ve posted the transcript for our “2024 DGCL Amendments: Implications & Unanswered Questions” webcast. Our panelists – Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Steven Haas, Gibson Dunn’s Julia Lapitskaya & Morris Nichols’ Eric Klinger-Wilensky – provided their insights into this year’s controversial DGCL amendments. Topics addressed included the amendments’ implications for governance and acquisition agreements, the interplay between fiduciary duties and contractual obligations, and unanswered questions resulting from the amendments.

Here’s a snippet from Steve Haas’s thoughts on how the ability to include provisions for lost premium damages in merger may influence the drafting of specific performance language:

“Next drafting point, the final one under this ConEd, or Crispo category, is the issue of specific performance. Surely parties will continue to prefer specific performance as a remedy in a busted deal over monetary damages. The synopsis says that the statute is not intended to exclude any remedies that are otherwise available. With that said, merger agreements may want to expressly say that notwithstanding the company does have the right to seek loss premium damages, the parties still agree that monetary damages will be inadequate, and that the parties are entitled to seek specific performance. Maybe that’s a drafting nuance, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see more agreements acknowledge the damages section, but still saying very specifically that the parties are agreeing that specific performance is the chosen remedy.”

Members of this site can access the transcript of this program. If you are not a member of DealLawyers.com, email sales@ccrcorp.com to sign up today and get access to the full transcript – or sign up online.

– John Jenkins