Tag Archives: section 220

Confidentiality Agreement Not Always Required for Section 220 Demands

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 220 … Continue Reading

Chancery Clarifies Section 220 Principles

A recent Delaware Court of Chancery opinion clarified a few key Section 220 prerequisites that are not otherwise explicit in the statute. The decision styled In re Facebook, Inc., Section 220 Litigation, Cons. C.A. No. 2018-0661-JRS (Del. Ch. rev. May 31, 2019), is notable for the following refinements of well-worn Section 220 requirements for a … Continue Reading

Chancery Denies Section 220 Demand for Corporate Books and Records

A recent post-trial decision from the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a claim for corporate books and records based on DGCL § 220 after finding that there was no credible basis for wrongdoing to support the stated investigative purpose for the demand. Hoeller v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0336-JRS (Del. Ch. Feb. 12, … Continue Reading

Company Required to Produce Emails Among Management to Stockholders

The Delaware Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that clarifies the duty of a company to produce emails among its management in a Section 220 case. In KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Technologies, Inc., Del. Supr., No. 281, 2018 (Jan. 29, 2019), Delaware’s High Court addressed a demand under Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) Section … Continue Reading

Chancery Rejects Claims for Books and Records Per Section 220, For Lack of Proper Purpose

Beiser v. PMC-Sierra, Inc., (Del. Ch., Feb. 26, 2009), read opinion here. This Chancery Court opinion rejected a claim under DGCL Section 220 for books and records of a corporation based on the court’s finding that the "proper purpose" for such a demand was not satisfied. The reasoning was that this suit was an attempt … Continue Reading
LexBlog