Never ever treat a blog post on legal issues as definitive when written by non-lawyers, especially when it cites no sources.
I'm not a lawyer, but the statement "we conducted a systematic analysis of a century’s worth of legal theory and precedent" is utter twaddle. There are disciplines of law on which people build careers attempting to sort out these issues.
Worse yet, a post that discusses conflict between shareholders' interests and directors' actions in the context of an acquisition but that doesn't even mention Revlon duties, which arose from the seminal case in this area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon,_Inc._v._MacAndrews_%26_...), is seriously suspect. The case law has evolved significantly since then and it is difficult for those without legal training to fully grasp (not to mention that US corporate law has its quirks, which two academics from other countries may not be fully familiar).
Point being, this is a complex area on which there are hundreds of publishing corporate law professors and practitioners. The "myth" is a strawman.
I'm not a lawyer, but the statement "we conducted a systematic analysis of a century’s worth of legal theory and precedent" is utter twaddle. There are disciplines of law on which people build careers attempting to sort out these issues.
Worse yet, a post that discusses conflict between shareholders' interests and directors' actions in the context of an acquisition but that doesn't even mention Revlon duties, which arose from the seminal case in this area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon,_Inc._v._MacAndrews_%26_...), is seriously suspect. The case law has evolved significantly since then and it is difficult for those without legal training to fully grasp (not to mention that US corporate law has its quirks, which two academics from other countries may not be fully familiar).
Point being, this is a complex area on which there are hundreds of publishing corporate law professors and practitioners. The "myth" is a strawman.