Staff Editor 2019-2020, Contributor 2018-2019
Emma is currently a second-year student at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law pursuing a JD with a certificate in the Corporate and Commercial Law Program. She is a Virginia native and a graduate of The College of William and Mary, where she earned a Bachelor of Science in Psychology with a minor in Sociology.
In addition to her work with The Race to the Bottom, Emma is President of the DU Women’s Legal Coalition and an active member of the Colorado Women’s Bar Association. Last year, Emma interned at Alexius Solutions, LLC, a managed legal services company, where she focused her efforts on franchise law issues and business planning. She is currently a legal blogger for Larsen Law Offices, where she writes on transactional law issues relevant to technology businesses.
She is interested in corporate law broadly, with specific passions for corporate governance matters and contract drafting and negotiation. Outside of law school, Emma enjoys spending time with her cats, binge-watching crime documentaries, and traveling the world.
Proxy contests are one means through which shareholders can voice concerns about board action. Due to their excessively high cost, proxy contests were once somewhat rare; today, however, they are much more common due to the flourish of hedge funds. (Warren S. de Wied, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Westlaw Practical Law). One such hedge fund contributing to these proxy contests is Third Point, LLC (“Third Point”), founded by Daniel S. Loeb in New York in 1995. (Campbell Soup Co.). This note introduces readers to current trends in activist-led proxy contests, summarizes a recent proxy fight between Third Point and Campbell Soup Co. (“Campbell”), and speculates on how this and similar contests may affect corporate accountability in 2019.
International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) announced on October 28th of 2018 its plans to acquire American software company Red Hat, Inc. (“Red Hat”) for $34 billion. (Liana B. Baker and Greg Roumeliotis, Reuters). The deal, which is the software industry’s largest-ever acquisition, is expected to close in the latter half of 2019. Id. IBM is set to pay $190 per Red Hat share — a 63% premium on Red Hat’s closing share price on October 26, 2018. Id. IBM intends to maintain Red Hat’s headquarters, facilities, brands, and practices, as well as retain Red Hat’s management team and Chief Executive Officer Jim Whitehurst after the deal has closed. Id. This post provides an overview of the two companies, the deal, and its anticipated effects.
On September 20th of this year, fashion industry giants Michael Kors Holdings Limited (“Michael Kors”) and Gianni Versace S.p.A. (“Versace”) issued a joint press release announcing that Michael Kors would purchase Versace for $2.12 billion. (Katina Metzidakis, Business Wire). The transaction is expected to be completed in Michael Kors’ fourth quarter, which ends April 1, 2019. (Michael Kors Holdings Limited, 2018 Annual Report). When the transaction is complete, the company will be renamed Capri Holdings Limited (“Capri”), after the famed Italian island “long recognized as an iconic, glamorous and luxury destination.” (Katina Metzidakis, Business Wire). This post provides an overview of the transaction and its anticipated effects.
Vertical mergers, unlike more-litigated horizontal mergers, are governed by few guidelines from antitrust regulatory organizations and, until recently, had never been challenged in federal court. The approval of a vertical merger between AT&T and Time Warner (“The Merger”), despite protests from the Antitrust Department of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), has shed some light on merger control rules for vertical mergers. This post provides an overview of: (1) vertical merger laws; (2) The Merger; and (3) the governing principles that have emerged since the approval of the AT&T transaction. (Noah Brumfield, Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report (BNA)).
A Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) is an organization in which the traditional business management scheme is replaced by blockchain technology. While DAOs function like corporations in some ways, they replace board members with code and leave business decisions up to token-holders who exist as nodes along the blockchain. No single entity owns the DAO, and the organization’s day-to-day operations are executed via smart contracts. This note introduces readers to DAOs, provides insights into how major industry players and regulators are interacting with them, and speculates on how DAOs may influence the future of corporate law.
In Laborers’ Local #231 Pension Fund v. Cowan, No. 17-478, 2018 BL 85103 (D. Del. Mar. 13, 2018), the court granted Rory Cowan and his co-executives’ (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss Laborers’ Local #231 Pension Fund’s (“Plaintiffs”) amended complaint. The court held Plaintiffs failed to state a claim in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) because they failed to allege “a misleading or false statement or omission” in the proxy statement.