What Happens With the Former Board, Stays With the Former Board: Delaware Court Dismisses Claims Against Directors for Failing to Investigate Past Misconduct
In a recent dismissal of all claims in Borsody v. Gibson, the Delaware Court of Chancery grappled with an unusual set of circumstances involving a former director who believed he had been wrongfully removed from a board and prevented from exercising his stock options. Having missed the window for asserting claims against the two officers who allegedly engaged in the wrongful scheme, he instead targeted two new directors who did not join the Board until after the scheme had already been completed.
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.
“Clear Day” Corporate Travel Gets Green Light From Delaware Supreme Court
The Delaware Supreme Court’s February 4, 2024 decision in Maffei (TripAdvisor) v. Palkon has substantially reduced procedural friction for Delaware corporations considering reincorporation in other states. It reversed the Court of Chancery’s ruling that denied TripAdvisor’s motion to dismiss and comes nearly a year after TripAdvisor’s interlocutory appeal was accepted. As Sidley’s Jim Ducayet and Deepa Chari wrote last May, the appeal’s acceptance despite the Court of Chancery’s refusal to certify its ruling for interlocutory appeal demonstrated the Delaware Supreme Court’s “willingness to step in … to ensure the coherence and predictability of corporate governance.” This month’s decision affirms Delaware’s commitment to predictability and underscores that a clear day decision to reincorporate elsewhere should be protected by the business judgment rule.
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.
Five Delaware Cases All Venture Capital Players Should Know
Now and then this blog publishes compendiums of bedrock decisions and key principles of which M&A and Corporate Governance practitioners, and their clients, should be aware. This post takes the opportunity to highlight five relatively recent and important decisions that have shaped Delaware legal practice and discourse involving venture capital investment. Counsel representing investors and other players in emerging growth companies should familiarize themselves with this digest.
Delaware’s Appealing Interlocutory Review Regime
In a recent case, Palkon v. Maffei (TripAdvisor), the Delaware Supreme Court accepted an interlocutory appeal of the Court of Chancery’s denial of shareholders’ motion to dismiss. Such appeals are not common: Delaware Supreme Court Rule 42(b) expressly provides that “[i]nterlocutory appeals should be exceptional, not routine, because they disrupt the normal procession of litigation, cause delay, and can threaten to exhaust scarce party and judicial resources.” Even more unusually, the Delaware Supreme Court took this step over the Court of Chancery’s refusal to certify the appeal. This decision and others demonstrate the Delaware Supreme Court’s willingness to step in affirmatively, even mid-case, to ensure the coherence and predictability of corporate governance law — particularly when a matter of public concern is at stake. (more…)
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.
“A Bad Bull”: Chancery Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Fee Application in Oracle Derivative Litigation
Plaintiffs’ bid for a US$5 million mootness fee in In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2017-0337-SG was denied by Vice Chancellor Glasscock, who noted that “not even great counsel can wring significant stockholder value from litigation over an essentially loyal and careful sales process.”
Entire Fairness Does Not Require Perfection
The Delaware Supreme Court recently held in In re Tesla Motors Stockholders’ Litigation, ___ A.3d ___, 2023 WL 3854008 (Del. Jun. 6, 2023) (“Tesla”), that an entire fairness analysis does not require perfection, so long as the acquisition itself was the result of fair dealing and fair price. Practitioners and boards engaging with a potentially conflicted transaction would be well served to study this opinion with care, particularly where the potential acquiror cannot (or chooses not to) employ a special committee of independent directors to handle negotiations.
