kaal:claim:5583610-016

Under Blasius, LER should function as a last-resort tool justified by evidence of severe harm to the corporation, such as an activist's documented history of value destruction, so that courts can test whether less restrictive alternatives existed.

Source quote, verbatim

LER deployment must be justified by evidence of severe harm to the corporation. Examples may include an activist's history of value destruction. LER should be a last-resort tool, allowing courts to scrutinize if less restrictive alternatives exist.

From

Wulf A. Kaal, Liquid Equity Rewards in Corporate America (2025), 4.3. Legal Boundaries Under Delaware and SEC Rules, p. 20
https://ssrn.com/abstract=5583610 · source PDF

Cite as

Wulf A. Kaal, Liquid Equity Rewards in Corporate America (2025). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5583610

Holds when

board action that intentionally frustrates shareholder voting
Blasius compelling justification review

Classification

conditionsupport: arguedgovernance-design

Verify

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 2d73609d95ddb1573acc2a9e7af617fbe6283d6e591deb6317f6d5d804517c62. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/37435b9b63a3e7a1...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/5583610-016.md | sha256sum