Get Your Story Straight: Inconsistency in Plaintiff’s Allegations & Theories Dooms Complaint
This past summer, in a decision that attracted little attention, Vice Chancellor David in the Delaware Court of Chancery tossed Joel B. Ritchie v. G. Leonard Baker et al., a shareholder derivative suit filed on behalf of Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. against certain directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to off-label marketing practices. The Court dismissed the complaint under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 because Plaintiff, who had not made a pre-litigation demand, failed to plead that the Board was unable to bring its business judgment to bear on assessing such a demand and, as such, the demand was not futile.
Potential Control Won’t Do: Court of Chancery Confirms Common Law Standards for Actual Control Regarding Challenged Transactions
Recently, in Witmer v. Armistice Capital, LLC, Delaware’s Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder plaintiff’s derivative suit against Armistice Capital, LLC, a large investor in Aytu Biopharma, Inc., for, among other things, purported breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting fiduciary breaches, in connection with two transactions for which the plaintiff alleged Aytu overpaid, the investor improperly benefited, and the investor exercised control.
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…)
Texas Seeks to “Seize the Moment” by Enacting Major Changes to Business Organizations Code
On May 14, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 29 (“S.B. 29”), which amends the Texas Business Organizations Code (“TBOC”) as part of the Texas legislature’s broader initiative to modernize the state’s corporate laws and attract businesses to the state. This follows, and in many ways complements, legislation in 2023 establishing the Texas Business Court to focus on, and accelerate the development of, Texas business law. S.B. 29 codifies the business judgment rule; provides a framework for navigating transactions involving a controlling shareholder; allows corporations to prospectively waive jury trials for internal entity claims and set ownership thresholds for shareholder actions; and allows alternative entities to eliminate fiduciary duties in their governing documents. While the amendments impact both public and private entities, the legislature was particularly focused on publicly traded corporations organized under Texas law (and those that are considering reincorporating in the state). The following provides a brief overview of noteworthy changes.
Court of Chancery Issues Rare Pre-Discovery Dismissal of Entire Fairness Claim
In February, in an offshoot of the dwindling SPAC boom, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in In re Skillsoft Stockholders Litigation, No. 2023-1179-JTL (Feb. 7, 2025). Notably, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster dismissed the case even though it evaluated the transaction under the demanding entire fairness standard. The court recently denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reargument, briefly noting that it “did not misapprehend any issue of fact or law.” In re Skillsoft Stockholders Litigation, No. 2023-1179-JTL (Mar. 27, 2025). (more…)
The Final Chapter: Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Favor of Larry Ellison and Safra Catz for NetSuite Deal Litigation
On January 21, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s post-trial opinion in favor of the Defendants in In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litigation.
Chancery Court Reminds Bricklayers of Sturdy Foundation Required to Plead Demand Futility for Caremark Claims
Last month, in Bricklayers Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v. Brinkley, Delaware’s Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder plaintiff’s derivative suit against the directors and officers of Centene Corporation for purported breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with their oversight of company compliance with Medicaid laws and regulations. The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish demand futility pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23.1. Put another way, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had standing to pursue claims on behalf of Centene.
Controller’s Ability to Appoint and Remove Directors at Will Insufficient to Establish Demand Futility
In Harrison Metal Capital, an investment fund with an 18% stake in a privately held company called MixMax, Inc. believed the CEO was committing financial improprieties, but found no legal recourse for its complaint. Although certain features of the case are unusual as a factual matter, the Court of Chancery’s analysis of demand futility in a company with a controlling stockholder will be applicable in more conventional derivative actions as well.
Carvana SLC Drives Away Derivative Case
On March 27, 2024, Chancellor McCormick granted the Carvana Special Litigation Committee’s motion to dismiss after finding no wrongdoing by the Company’s controlling stockholders in connection with its March 2020 direct offering and the controlling stockholders’ subsequent sale of Company stock for over US$1 billion. See https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=362010.
Delaware Court of Chancery Says It’s Game Over on Massive Fees for “Minuscule” Work
Last month, in an oral ruling likely to bring great joy to the Delaware defense bar, Vice Chancellor Zurn issued an atypical “Statement of the Court” in Garfield v. Getaround that swiftly rejected an $850,000 fee request in a derivative action. Plaintiff sought the fee for its efforts in prompting Defendant Getaround Inc. to make changes to its voting structure. Calling attention to the slew of similar actions by stockholders following Garfield v. Boxed, Vice Chancellor Zurn said the “game is over” for attorneys’ “making a literal fortune off of a minuscule number of hours of work.”
