I was reading Usha's article tonight and I came across the word "acquirer" in a section on freezeout mergers in Delaware corporations. Normally, I expect people to use the alternate spelling ("acquiror") when discussing Delaware corporate law, even though "acquirer" is viewed in some circles as the proper form. (Indeed, Microsoft Word automatically changes "acquiror" to "acquirer.") So I wondered whether my expectation of "acquiror" was grounded in practice, and I turned to Westlaw.
"Acquiror" appears in exactly double the number of Delaware cases as "acquirer" (222 v. 111). In cases decided after 2000, however, the margin narrows (53 v. 47). In the JLR database, "acquirer" is more common than "acquiror," and the trend favors the latter. I searched documents published prior to 2001 (2558 v. 2740) and documents after 2000 (1384 v. 2172), and you can see the results.
Oh, in case you were wondering, the Delaware Code uses the term only once -- in Title 18 (Insurance) -- and it spells the word "acquirer."
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Links to weblogs that reference "Acquiror" or "Acquirer"?:
1. Posted by Ken Adams on March 18, 2007 @ 7:05 | Permalink
Gordon: I've sporadically wondered about this, but I didn't have the wit to check it out myself, so I was pleased to see your post. For my part, I find "acquirer/or" to be a bit stodgy, so I use "buyer." Ken
2. Posted by Ryan on March 16, 2010 @ 8:23 | Permalink
3. Posted by Bo Brustkern on March 27, 2011 @ 12:09 | Permalink
Here's an interesting Ngram on the topic.
Doesn't put the debate to rest, but it certainly ads heft to the argument for "acquirer."