This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law, and writing about it for various legal publications, for over 30 years.

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently granted a Sahara Enterprises Inc.  investor’s books-and-records demand to know how the allegedly underperforming investment company was being run after finding that the

This post juxtaposes two recent decisions from the Delaware Court of Chancery addressing a perennial favorite of Delaware corporate litigation: Stockholder demands for records under DGCL Section 220.

Although the Section 220 demand was successful in the matter of Donnelly v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0892-SG (Del. Ch. Oct. 24, 2019), by contrast:

The Delaware Supreme Court recently announced a decision of great importance for stockholder demands under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. In Tiger v. Boast Apparel, Inc., No. 23, 2019 (Del. Supr. Aug. 7, 2019), the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that:

(i) although inspection of records demanded by stockholders pursuant to Section

Among the multitude of court decisions on DGCL Section 220 highlighted on these pages, a rare bird is the shifting of fees by the court based on the bad-faith exception to the American Rule. In a rare instance that should not be considered anything other than unusual, the Court of Chancery recently granted, in a

Qualcomm was sued recently in the Delaware Court of Chancery based on a request pursuant to DGCL Section 220, seeking corporate records regarding the company’s political contributions. Professor Stephen Bainbridge provides a scholarly analysis with copious citations to case law, suggesting that the prerequisites of Section 220 are not likely to be satisfied in such

In Espinoza v. Hewlett-Packard Co., read opinion here, the Delaware Supreme Court yesterday affirmed the Court of Chancery’s denial of a request under DGCL Section 220 for a report regarding the investigation relating to the ouster of former Hewlett Packard CEO Mark Hurd. Highlights of prior Chancery decisions in this matter are available here.