Delaware vs. New York Governing Law

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation 2014-01-06


Editor's Note: Daniel Wolf is a partner at Kirkland & Ellis focusing on mergers and acquisitions. The following post is based on a Kirkland memorandum by Mr. Wolf and Matthew Solum. This post is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Among the many legalese-heavy paragraphs appearing under the “Miscellaneous” heading at the back of transaction agreements is a section that stipulates the laws of the state that will govern the purchase agreement as well as disputes relating to the deal. Often, it is coupled with a section that dictates which courts have jurisdiction over these disputes. While the state of incorporation or headquarters of one or both parties is sometimes selected, anecdotal as well as empirical evidence suggests that a healthy majority of larger transactions choose Delaware or New York law. Reasons cited include the significant number of companies incorporated in Delaware, the well-developed and therefore more predictable legal framework in these jurisdictions, the sophistication of the judiciary in these states, the perception of these being “neutral” jurisdictions in cases where each party might otherwise favor a “home” state, and the desired alignment with the governing law of related financing documents (usually New York).

Click here to read the complete post...


From feeds: Aggregation Hub » The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation


comparative corporate governance & regulation mergers & acquisitions practitioner publications daniel wolf delaware law forum selection jurisdiction kirkland & ellis matthew solum merger litigation new york


Daniel E. Wolf, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,

Date tagged:

01/06/2014, 15:57

Date published:

01/02/2014, 09:13