Amalgamated Bank v. Dauphin County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 67-2013 (Del. Supr., Feb. 26, 2013). This short Order of the Delaware Supreme Court is noteworthy because it declined to address an issue that has filled many of the pages of this blog over the last 8 years or so: What is the appropriate role of DGCL Section 220 (which provides limited rights of a shareholder to obtain books and records of a company), in connection with the timing of a derviative or class action suit against a company.

The appellant in this case intervened for purposes of filing an interlocutory appeal when the Court of Chancery refused to postpone a determination of the selection of lead counsel in consolidated cases (in which the appellant had not yet joined), until after the appellant completed its Section 220 efforts. I suppose one could read more into this short Order than might be appropriate. The Order merely says that the High Court did not exercise its discretion to accept this interlocutory appeal.

For the practitioner, it means that Section 220 is still a dual-edged sword and not always as effective as one might hope. See, e.g., the Section 220 law review article the the authors of this blog published, which notes the absence of any Delaware authority on the issue of whether ESI is covered by Section 220.

See prior Chancery ruling in this case, on a different issue, highlighted here on these pages.