This Article revisits the issues explored in Delaware's Going-Private Dilemma: Fostering Protections for Minority Shareholders in the Wake of Siliconix and Unocal Exploration ("Delaware's Going-Private Dilemma"), an article published in the February 2003 edition of The Business Lawyer. Specifically, it reexamines Delaware's Going-Private Dilemma in light of the Court of Chancery's decision in In re Pure Resources Shareholders Litigation ("Pure Resources") and the critique offered in Going-Private "Dilemma"?-Not in Delaware (the "Response"), an article published in the August 2003 edition of The Business Lawyer The Article argues that the Response misconstrues Delaware's Going-Private Dilemma by, among other things, treating the two steps of going-private transactions as analytically unrelated. It moreover charges that the Response overstates the supposed effectiveness of the existing safeguards available to minority shareholders in such transactions and concludes that, notwithstanding the additional and laudable protections proffered by the Court of Chancery in Pure Resources, the need for the proposed reforms advocated in Delaware's Going-Private Dilemma continues.
