英语专业人士看过来呀WhenIwroteaboutthisdealin2008,InotedthatDelawaredidnothavearemedyofoppression;thisisaheightenedstandardofreviewforinequitableactionsbymajorityshareholdersinsmall,privatelyheldcorporation

Question

英语专业人士看过来呀
When I wrote about this deal in 2008,I noted that Delaware did not have a remedy of oppression; this is a heightened standard of review for inequitable actions by majority shareholders in small,privately held corporations.There is some good commentary out there analyzing this case on oppression grounds.(For detailed commentary along these lines,see this analysis by Prof.Gordon Smith .) This may be true,but the typical remedy of oppression is a buyout or a dissolution — an escape for the shareholder.
另外一句
Instead,he largely relied on the requirement of Unocal that before this analysis was undertaken the board must “identify the proper corporate objectives served by their actions.”

Answer 1

当我对这个协议在2008年说,我注意到,美国特拉华州没有补救的压迫,这是一个审查由大股东不公平的行动,小型私人公司提高标准.在那里有一些分析这一案件上的压迫理由好评论. （沿着这些路线的详细评论,看到这个戈登史密斯教授分析.）这可能是真实的,但压迫典型的补救措施就是买断或解散 - 为股东逃脱.
另外一句的翻译
相反,他在很大程度上依赖于对优尼科的要求,在此之前进行的分析,董事会必须“通过他们的行动确定适当的公司所服务的目标.”