In the decision of Barbey v. Cerego, Inc., C.A. No. 2022-0107-PAF (Del. Ch., Sept. 29, 2023), the Delaware Court of Chancery considered the proper constitution of a Delaware corporation’s board of directors under Section 225 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) after members of the board of directors were removed following a corporate inversion.
Delaware Supreme Court Rejects Confidentiality Restrictions of Section 220 Demand Inspection
In the decision of James Rivest v. Hauppauge Digital, Inc., No. 442, 2022 (Del. July 10, 2023), the Delaware Supreme Court considered the extent to which a Delaware corporation’s production of books and records under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law should be subject to confidentiality restrictions.
Background
James Rivest was a
Section 220 Inspection Demand to Investigate Merger Process Granted
Books and records inspection demands commonly arise in connection with a major transaction of a Delaware corporation, including a merger. The decision of Kosinski v. GGP, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0540-KSJM (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 2019) involved such a demand to investigate mismanagement, including whether plaintiff had established a “credible basis” to infer mismanagement.
In
Confidentiality Order Requirement in Delaware Books and Records Actions Clarified by Supreme Court
A question often arises as to whether a party making a books and records demand under 8 Del. C. § 220 must enter into a confidentiality agreement in order to inspect responsive documents of the corporation.
The Delaware Supreme Court, in the decision of Tiger v. Boast Apparel, Inc., 214 A.3d 933 (Del. Aug.
Delaware Courts Are Striking Overly Broad Non-Competes — Even In the Sale of a Business
Delaware, long viewed to be one of the most business-friendly jurisdictions in the country, has joined the ever-expanding list of jurisdictions that no longer give businesses the benefit of the doubt when it comes to restrictive covenants.
Partners Christina Bost Seaton, Amy Epstein Gluck and I explored this issue as set forth herein.
Traditionally
Delaware Court of Chancery Grants in Part and Denies in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Direct and Derivative Claims
In the recent decision of Schoenmann v. Irvin, et al., C.A. No. 2021-0326-SG (Del. Ch. Jun. 2, 2022), the Delaware Court of Chancery denied in part and granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s direct and derivative claims against Clear Align, LLC and its President, CEO and majority Board member, Angelique Irvin. While
Delaware Court of Chancery Invalidates Board’s Application of a Voting Limitation Pursuant to Company Charter
In the decision of Deann M. Totta, et al. v. CCSB Financial Corp., C.A. No. 2021-0173-KSJM (Del. Ch. May 31, 2022), the Court of Chancery held that the board of directors of Defendant, CCSB Financial Corp. (“CCSB”), misapplied a vote aggregation provision in the corporation’s charter that disenfranchised the shareholder Plaintiffs and, furthermore, was
Delaware Court of Chancery Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Additional Books and Records in Section 220 Demand
In the recent decision of Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 2021-1484-LWW (Del. Ch. Jun. 1, 2022) (Mem. Op.), the Court of Chancery denied Plaintiff’s Section 220 request to demand additional inspection of Amazon’s books and records, finding that Plaintiff had not set forth a proper purpose for its
Delaware Court of Chancery Denies Defendants’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal After Kirpat Factor Analysis
In a recent action brought under Section 225 of the DGCL, the Delaware Court of Chancery validated a written consent removing Defendants Long Deng and Mark Fang from iFresh, Inc.’s (“iFresh”) Board of Directors and appointing new directors in their stead. A summary of the decision can be found here. Defendants filed an
Delaware Court of Chancery Upholds Written Consent Removing Board of Directors in Section 225 Action
In the decision of Dengrong Zhou v. Long Deng and Mark Fang, C.A. No. 2021-0026-JRS (Del. Ch. Apr. 6, 2022) (Mem. Op.), the Delaware Court of Chancery found that a majority of stakeholders from iFresh, Inc. (the “Control Group”) had validly executed a written consent (the “Consent”) removing Defendants Deng and Fang from the