Inspection Rights, Internal Affairs, and Personal Jurisdiction: Orchid Global’s Procedural Lesson
In Orchid Global, Inc. v. Salamon, Vice Chancellor Will addressed an important procedural question left open by the Delaware Court of Chancery’s 2020 decision in JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Grove. In JUUL, the Court of Chancery held that, under the internal affairs doctrine, Delaware law governs the inspection rights of stockholders of Delaware corporations notwithstanding that California’s stockholder inspection statutes apply by their terms to some foreign corporations headquartered in California. (more…)
Delaware Court of Chancery Draws a Line on Release Conditions in M&A
In a recent post-trial decision, the Delaware Court of Chancery held that a corporation breached its certificate of incorporation by conditioning payment of merger consideration on a stockholder’s execution of a joinder agreement that included a broad release of claims. The court held that the stockholder’s damages were limited to the merger consideration payable under the merger agreement and that prejudgment interest was owed as a matter of right. The decision is a useful reminder for deal lawyers that merger consideration generally should not be used as leverage to obtain a release unless the release is properly supported and enforceable. (more…)
Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Limits on Hypothetical Bylaw Challenges
On April 29, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of consolidated challenges to advance notice bylaws adopted in 2023 by each of The AES Corporation and Owens Corning (In re The AES Corporation and Owens Corning; one of the underlying decisions was discussed in a prior post, available here). The decision reinforces a central theme in recent bylaw litigation: Courts will review advance notice bylaw challenges when there is a concrete dispute, not when the challenge depends on hypothetical future events that have not transpired.
Fake Corporate Records, No Control: Court of Chancery Rejects Control Claim Under Section 225
In Berg v. Bar Lavi, the Delaware Court of Chancery rejected a claim of control in a Section 225 proceeding where the plaintiff relied on documents the Court found were fabricated. After trial, the Court concluded that the purported stock ledger and written consent were not authentic and could not establish ownership. Instead, the Court looked to forensic evidence and the parties’ conduct over time to determine whether the plaintiff had proven that he owned or controlled the company. The takeaway: corporate records carry weight in control disputes only if they are credible.
Texas Corporate Litigation Reforms Take Hold: Federal Court Enforces Texas’s 3% Ownership Requirement for Derivative Claims
Last summer, the Texas legislature enacted sweeping amendments to the Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC) with the stated purpose of “modernizing” the code and “clarifying and strengthening” the state’s corporate law framework. See our previous post for an overview of Texas Senate Bill 29 (S.B. 29).
Chancery to Directors: Don’t Play Dirty
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently provided a powerful reminder of the Court’s equitable purpose, and how it will not countenance bad faith or duplicity. In Ghatty v. Mudili et. al., three board members of a five-member board voted at a special board meeting to remove the remaining two directors from their officer positions, and later sued under 8 Del. C. § 225 to seek confirmation that the two directors had been validly removed from their officer roles. The Defendants challenged their removal on a number of grounds. The Court of Chancery considered one argument dispositive: that the meeting notice was inherently deficient because the meeting agenda omitted the removal action effectuated at the meeting, and indeed misleadingly suggested that one Defendant’s officer role would be expanded. The Court condemned the notice as “duplicity,” voided the vote, and held that the Defendants remained officers of the Company.
California Appellate Court Affirms Enforceability of Federal Forum Provisions in Securities Act Litigation
This past spring, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the enforceability of federal forum provisions (“FFPs”) in corporate charters. Bullock v. Rivian Auto., Inc., No. G063033, 2025 WL 1177303 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2025). FFPs, which require stockholders to bring claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “‘33 Act”) in federal court instead of state court, were deemed facially valid in Delaware in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, 227 A.3d 102 (Del. 2020). Underscoring the importance of the forum for suits based on securities offerings, the plaintiffs in Bullock sought review of the California court’s decision. On August 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of California declined the plaintiffs’ petition for review. Petition for review & publication request(s) denied, Bullock v. Rivian Auto., Inc., No. S290922 (Cal. Aug. 13, 2025). The plaintiffs have now indicated an intent to seek certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. See Application to Extend the Time to File a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Bullock v. Rivian Auto., Inc., No. 25A506 (U.S. filed Oct. 31, 2025), application granted (Nov. 4, 2025).
Court of Chancery Reaffirms High Bar for Challenging Advance Notice Bylaws, but Emphasizes the Importance of Clear Drafting
On August 25, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery in Carroll v. Burstein dismissed a stockholder’s facial challenge to the advance notice bylaw of Stoke Therapeutics, Inc. (Stoke). An advance notice bylaw requires a stockholder to provide a company advance notice of its intention to nominate a director candidate or submit a proposal for approval by stockholders. The decision adds to the growing body of caselaw governing advance notice bylaws in the wake of Kellner v. AIM ImmunoTech Inc., 320 A.3d 239 (Del. 2024) (Kellner II), which held that a bylaw is facially invalid only if it cannot operate lawfully under any circumstance. In addition, Carroll offers an important reminder to companies of the need for careful bylaw drafting to promote clarity and foster sound corporate governance.
Delaware Court of Chancery Finds No “Truth” to Minority Shareholder’s Allegations of a Lock-Up Conspiracy by Truth Social Operator, But Does Not Reach Presidential Immunity
In September, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a lawsuit by minority shareholder United Atlantic Ventures, LLC (“UAV”) against Trump Media and Technology Group Corp. (“TMTG”), the operator of social media platform Truth Social, and several other individual Defendants, including President Donald Trump, Devin Nunes, Donald Trump Jr., and Kash Patel. In the 55-page opinion, Vice Chancellor Will found that the Court of Chancery need not decide whether the case should be stayed based on presidential immunity, because all of the claims were incompatible with Delaware law, insufficiently pled “conspiracy theories,” or better suited for Florida state court.
California Supreme Court Holds Right to Jury Trial Does Not Bar Enforcement of a Delaware Forum Selection Clause
On July 21, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in EpicentRX v. Superior Court, reversing a decision by the California Fourth District Court of Appeal that declined to enforce a forum selection clause in a corporation’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws designating the Delaware Court of Chancery as the mandatory forum. As we reported at the time, the Court of Appeal concluded that because the Delaware Court of Chancery, as a court of equity, does not conduct jury trials, the forum selection clause in favor of the Delaware forum ran afoul of California’s “sacred” right to a jury trial and thus was unenforceable. In reversing, the California Supreme Court rejected this reasoning in its entirety, holding that “A forum selection clause is not unenforceable simply because it requires the parties to litigate in a jurisdiction that does not afford civil litigants the same right to trial by jury as litigants in California courts enjoy.” (more…)
