conomic analysis of the production of state corporate law went against the grain of the consensus understanding and Winter's article was therefore also largely ignored by the academy Winter and manne were truly voices in the wilderness and their analyses were widely regarded as"unsound "by their contemporaries. Today, decades later, their approach is mainstream corporate law, and serves as a starting point of present-day analyses of both advocates and critics of mergers and acquisitions and of state corporate law This transformation of the discourse is part and parcel of a revolution that effected a paradigm shift in how we understand corporations, business transactions, and the legal rules governing them, that took place in the decades following Manne's and Winters publications Manne and winter were not any less skillful analysts or policy advocates than the generation of ars that followed. Rather, the methodology that would have enabled Manne and winter to compel their contemporaries to confront (if not accept)their analyses by enabling them to demonstrate that their hypotheses regarding how managers behaved and how acquisitions and the market for control worked to discipline managers were correct, was not in place when those articles were written. It was only just being developed and therefore it was only some time later when their hypotheses could be tested and their insights fully appreciated; the impetus for their contemporaries to update their prior beliefs concerning regulation was lacking. Furthermore, the new transactions that underscored the intellectual vacuousness of the then dominant doctrinal paradigm did not yet exist. That is when the revolution, to which I will now turn, took hold The revolution There are three distinct strands to the story of the transformation of corporate law in the latter half of the 20 century. An important milestone in the making of the revolution in corporate law was the pioneering casebook on Corporate Finance, by Victor Brudney and5 economic analysis of the production of state corporate law went against the grain of the consensus understanding and Winter’s article was therefore also largely ignored by the academy. Winter and Manne were truly voices in the wilderness and their analyses were widely regarded as “unsound” by their contemporaries. Today, decades later, their approach is mainstream corporate law, and serves as a starting point of present-day analyses of both advocates and critics of mergers and acquisitions and of state corporate law. This transformation of the discourse is part and parcel of a revolution that effected a paradigm shift in how we understand corporations, business transactions, and the legal rules governing them, that took place in the decades following Manne’s and Winter’s publications. Manne and Winter were not any less skillful analysts or policy advocates than the generation of scholars that followed. Rather, the methodology that would have enabled Manne and Winter to compel their contemporaries to confront (if not accept) their analyses by enabling them to demonstrate that their hypotheses regarding how managers behaved and how acquisitions and the market for control worked to discipline managers were correct, was not in place when those articles were written. It was only just being developed and therefore it was only some time later when their hypotheses could be tested and their insights fully appreciated; the impetus for their contemporaries to update their prior beliefs concerning regulation was lacking. Furthermore, the new transactions that underscored the intellectual vacuousness of the then dominant doctrinal paradigm did not yet exist. That is when the revolution, to which I will now turn, took hold. The Revolution There are three distinct strands to the story of the transformation of corporate law in the latter half of the 20 century. An important milestone in the making of the revolution in th corporate law was the pioneering casebook on Corporate Finance, by Victor Brudney and