King v. DAG SPE Managing Member, Inc., C.A. No. 7770-VCP (Del. Ch. Dec. 23, 2013).
Issue Presented: Whether a former director has standing to demand books and records under DGCL Section 220(d) or under the common law. Short Answer: No.
Brief Overview:
This Court of Chancery decision granted a motion to dismiss under
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.
Background: Many prior Delaware decisions in this long-running
Kalisman v. Friedman, C.A. No. 8477-VCL (Del. Ch. April 17, 2013).
Issue Addressed: Can a corporation deny access to confidential data to a member of the board of directors based on the attorney/client privilege or work product doctrine? Short Answer: Not based on the facts of this case.
Short Overview
This gem of
Pyott v. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, No. 380, 2012 (Del. Supr., April 4, 2013)
Issues Addressed: (1) Whether or not a prior ruling by a California court dismissing a derivative suit served as a bar to subsequent Delaware derivative suits; and (2) Whether the failure to use Section 220 before filing suit
Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons of the Delaware Court of Chancery has penned a law review article with a former law clerk on the topic of shareholder litigation and how the burgeoning cases in this area have led to refinements in how shareholder representative suits in Chancery are handled. The article is entitled: Docket Dividends:
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
Doerler v. American Cash Exchange, Inc., C.A. No. 7640-VCG (Del. Ch. Feb. 19, 2013).
This gem of a Chancery decision provides an excellent overview of both the basic prerequisites of a claim for books and records under DGCL Section 220 as well as the nuances of certain defenses that may be–and may not be
The Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P. v. Winmill & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 7048-VCN (Del. Ch., Jan. 31, 2013). Issue Addressed: Whether a fiduciary duty claim can be combined with a Section 220 claim in the same complaint. Short Answer: No.
Brief Summary
This case involved a complaint that sought relief under DGCL
The law review article we wrote recently on Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), regarding the right of shareholders to books and records of a corporation, reached the Top 10 list of most downloaded articles on corporate governance from SSRN (which is a repository where one can find virtually all law