What's the Deal with Revlon?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Under the Revlon doctrine, courts are to apply a higher level of scrutiny in certain takeover situations in an attempt to control potential conflicts of interest that might prejudice target shareholders. However, the doctrine has always had sufficient "play in the joints" that one might reasonably wonder whether it has much of an effect in practice on short-term shareholder returns. Additionally, in recent years, the trend in Delaware's Revlon jurisprudence seems to be to defer to the target board as long as there are no glaring conflicts of interest. Taken together, these facts raise concern over the continued relevance of the Revlon doctrine. It turns out this concern is justified. In this Article, I present evidence that Revlon has a significant effect on the type of sales process that target boards adopt-when in Revlon mode, they pursue active market checks with greater frequency, engage with more potential bidders and receive more bids. However, this difference in process has no discernible effect on shareholder returns, whether measured as abnormal market returns upon deal announcement or deal premia. And yet, there is still evidence, in this study and others, that conflicts of interest abound.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)429-469
Number of pages41
JournalIndiana Law Journal
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2021

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law


Dive into the research topics of 'What's the Deal with Revlon?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this