Question

英语高手进！！

求英语达人帮忙翻译一下！
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

当我写的关于该协议在2008年,我发现特拉华没有补救的压迫,这是一个高度为不公正的行为标准的评论被多数股东在小、私营企业。有一些不错的评论,分析该案件有压迫带来了新的问题和顾虑。(详细的评论,沿着这些线分析由教授戈登·史密斯)。这也许是正确的,但在典型的压迫收购或者解散——一个逃跑的股东。

相反,他在很大程度上依赖于需求的基础上,分析了尤尼科之前,董事会必须进行适当的企业目标的“识别服务,通过自己的行动。”