The basic purpose of The Defining Tension is twofold:
- provide on a regular basis, and in a compact, up-to-date and easy accessible way, perspectives on Dutch and international developments in corporate law and related fields that are of interest to the Editors, including litigation; and
- serve as an independent forum for constructive discussion among authors and readers.
Partner of TDT is the Dutch Journal of Company Law (Ondernemingsrecht), the leading Dutch magazine on corporate law and related matters.
The target audience of TDT consists of legal practitioners in the bar, the bench and the academia who are active in this field, as well as corporate practitioners - such as directors and legal counsels - and students; both in- and outside the Netherlands, hence the English. Readers can subscribe easily for free RSS feeds in the right side-bar at the bottom.
The name of the blog - The Defining Tension - aims to capture the intention of the Editors: write about interesting issues in key fields of law related to companies. It is derived from the inherent tension between corporate director authority and judicial freedom to review corporate director conduct - often said to be the defining tension in today's corporate governance.
See, e.g., Omnicare, Inc. v. NCS Healthcare, Inc., 818 A.2d 914 (Del. 2003) and MM Companies, Inc. v. Liquid Audio, Inc., 813 A.2d 1118 (Del. 2003): "The "defining tension" in corporate governance today has been characterized as "the tension between deference to directors' decisions and the scope of judicial review"" (quoting E. Norman Veasey, The Defining Tension in Corporate Governance in America, 52 The Business Lawyer 1997, 403); Stephen M. Bainbridge, The Business Judgment Rule as Abstention Doctrine, 57 Vanderbilt Law Review 2004, 102-103; and Bastiaan F. Assink, Judicial Review of Director Conduct - Under Dutch and Delaware Corporate Law (diss.), Deventer: Kluwer 2007, p. 13.