Strayed from the Path: Dodiya v. Franklin and the Emerging Rules of the DGCL’s Section 144 Safe Harbors
On August 26, 2026, the Court of Chancery issued Dodiya v. Franklin, C.A. No. 2025-0932-LWW (Del. Ch. Aug. 26, 2026), concluding that the “striking breakdown in corporate governance” detailed in the complaint made the “predictable path to safe harbor” under amended Section 144 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) unavailable at the pleading stage. Dodiya’s message for boards is simple: the safe harbors deliver powerful protection, particularly by virtue of the presumption of disinterestedness afforded to directors determined to be independent for listing standard purposes, but only to boards that (i) run a process that is not grossly negligent and (ii) provide materially accurate disclosure to stockholders.
Heightened Means Heightened: Chancery’s First Read of SB 21’s New Presumption Shuts Down Demand Futility
In Ayers v. Foley (available here), the Delaware Court of Chancery recently became the first court to interpret Section 144(d)(2) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), the provision added by Senate Bill 21 (SB 21) in 2025 that affords a “heightened” presumption of disinterestedness to directors of listed companies whom the board has determined to be independent under stock exchange rules. Vice Chancellor Will held that the heightened presumption is not confined to Section 144’s safe harbors and applies with full force to the demand futility analysis under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1, and that overcoming it requires “substantial and particularized facts” of sufficient qualitative significance.
The decision illustrates the meaningful protections the amended statute now affords disinterested directors at the pleading stage, while confirming that directors who award compensation to themselves remain exposed to entire fairness review.
Concessions and Particularity: How a Derivative Challenge to a Discounted Insider Financing Failed at the Pleading Stage
In the recent decision Marstrand Partners, L.P. v. Israel Biotech Fund I, L.P., C.A. No. 2024-0421-KSJM (Del. Ch. May 27, 2026), Chancellor McCormick dismissed a derivative challenge to a steeply discounted insider financing after holding that the plaintiff failed to plead demand futility under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1. Although the plaintiff disputed the ability of only two directors to consider a demand impartially, the plaintiff failed to plead particularized facts showing either director was conflicted.
Simon Says, “Freeze!”: Court of Chancery Confirms that Company Counsel Must Play Neutral When Equal Ownership Board Is Deadlocked
Recently, in Kundrun v. AMCI Group, LLC, the Delaware Court of Chancery resolved a dispute at the intersection of corporate governance and litigation control by closely examining the intended allocations of authority within a company’s LLC agreement. The Court focused on the agreement’s division of authority among the company’s (i) two equal-equity owners, who comprised the company’s two-member board vested with management authority, and (ii) an executive chairman—one of the two board members—with authority to manage the day-to-day operations of the business. Reading the agreement as a whole, the Court concluded that it did not authorize one member of a deadlocked, evenly split board to direct the actions of company counsel when the matter at issue falls outside the business’s day-to-day operations. In resolving the issue, the Court reaffirmed the long-standing principle that, when a company board is evenly deadlocked in a dispute that effectively is bilateral, company counsel must stay neutral and may not side with one board member or faction over another.
Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Section 144 Safe Harbor Amendments
On February 27, 2026, in a unanimous 37-page opinion, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of significant changes to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) enacted in March 2025 via Senate Bill 21 (SB 21). This decision permits Delaware corporations and their advisers to confidently rely on these amendments for transactions with interested fiduciaries (including controlling stockholders), thereby increasing transaction planning flexibility and certainty while decreasing litigation risk under Delaware law.
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.
