A recent decision from the Delaware Supreme Court provides hope to stockholders who seek to obtain corporate documents pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law to the extent that Delaware’s High Court removed two common defenses that companies use to oppose the production of corporate records to stockholders.  In AmerisourceBergen Corporation v. Lebanon County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 60, 2020 (Del. Supr. Dec. 10, 2020), the two most important aspects of the ruling are that:

(i) A stockholder making a Section 220 demand need not demonstrate that the wrongdoing being investigated is “actionable;” and

(ii) When the purpose of a Section 220 demand is to investigate potential wrongdoing and mismanagement, the stockholder is not required to “specify the ends to which it might use” the corporate records requested (i.e., exactly what it will do with the documents it receives).

Regular readers of these pages know that over the last 15 years I have highlighted many of the frustrating aspects of decisions construing Section 220 to the extent that one needs stamina and economic fortitude to pursue what oftentimes is an unsatisfying result.  See, e.g., my recent overview on this topic.


This decision should be in the toolbox of every corporate litigator not only because it announces a new path for Section 220 cases, and reminds us of the basic prerequisites of the statute, but also in light of it partially overruling and distinguishing some prior cases. This opinion also confirms that several Chancery decisions that were not in harmony with this decision should no longer be followed.


Key Takeaways:

•           One of the most important takeaways from this decision is that the court clarified that when the purpose of a Section 220 demand is to investigate potential mismanagement, the stockholder is “not required to specify the ends to which it might use” the corporate documents requested.  See page 22.

•           The second most important takeaway from this case is the court’s holding that a stockholder pursuing a Section 220 demand need not demonstrate that the alleged wrongdoing is “actionable.”  See page 25.

•           The three prerequisites (not including the many nuances) for successfully pursuing a Section 220 demand to inspect a corporation’s books and records requires a stockholder to establish that:  (1) such stockholder is actually a stockholder; (2) such stockholder has complied with Section 220 respecting the form and manner of making demand for inspection of such documents; and (3) the inspection such stockholder seeks is for a proper purpose.  See pages 12-13.

•           The court recited the many examples of proper purposes that have been recognized to be reasonably related to the interest of the requesting stockholder.  See footnote 30 for a lengthy list, which includes “to communicate with other stockholders in order to effectuate changes in management policies.”

•           The court reiterated the well-known requirement that when the proper purpose of a stockholder making a Section 220 demand is to investigate potential mismanagement, a stockholder needs to demonstrate “a credible basis” from which the court may infer that “there is possible mismanagement that would warrant more investigation.”  See page 15.

•           Although a credible basis of wrongdoing needs to be presented by a preponderance of the evidence to pursue the proper purpose of investigating potential wrongdoing, a company will not be permitted to mount a merits-based defense of such potential wrongdoing.  See page 37.

•           Moreover, while trying to harmonize prior decisions on these nuances, the court observed that some of the decisions struck a discordant note.  See footnote 109.

•           The court also affirmed the following two aspects of the Court of Chancery’s ruling:  (1) regarding the scope of documents, the court found that it was appropriate to include a requirement that the company produce officer-level materials and (2) the high court found it was not an abuse of discretion to order a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition–because the company refused to describe the types and custodians of corporate records that it had in response to discovery requests.  See pages 39 and 43.