A recent decision from the Delaware Court of Chancery belongs in the pantheon of consequential court opinions addressing the nuances, first principles and practical challenges regarding Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. There are many decisions on this topic addressing the right of stockholders to demand inspection of corporate records, but few are

The following article is reprinted with permission from the Jan. 15, 2020 edition of “The Delaware Business Court Insider”, (c) 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

By: Francis G.X. Pileggi and Chauna A. Abner

This is the 15th year that Francis Pileggi and various co-authors have created an annual list of important

Over the last 14 years that I have published this blog, I have compiled an annual review with a list of key Delaware corporate and commercial decisions that have widespread utility to practitioners, especially those court decisions that are not widely covered by other legal publications or the mainstream press. On a few occasions, I

Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System v. Hershey Co., No. 7996, Master’s Report (Del. Ch. Aug. 16, 2013).

This decision rejected a demand for books and records of the Hershey Company based on DGCL Section 220. The stockholder claimed, in essence, that Hershey’s management must be complicit in the abhorrent child labor practices in the

Sutherland v. Sutherland, C.A. No. 2399-VCN (Del. Ch. May 30, 2013).

Issue Addressed:  Whether certain directors violated their fiduciary duties by benefiting from a system of charging for administrative expenses for personal matters that was more favorable to certain directors.

Short Answer:  No.

BackgroundMany prior Delaware decisions in this long-running