Corporate Governance

Subscribe to Corporate Governance via RSS

In Maffei v. Palkon, No. 125, 2024, 2025 Del. LEXIS 51 (Del. Feb. 4, 2025) (Valihura, J.), the Delaware Supreme Court held that a corporation’s decision to reincorporate in another state purportedly to reduce exposure to potential future litigation risk is subject to the deferential business judgment rule, as long as the decision is not alleged to have been made to avoid any existing or threatened litigation or in contemplation of a specific transaction. Reversing the decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery [see blog article here], the Supreme Court concluded that reduced exposure to potential liabilities that a controlling stockholder may face in the future is not a material, non-ratable benefit triggering the exacting entire fairness standard of review. Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court Holds Business Judgment Governs Decision to Reincorporate Outside of Delaware For Purpose of Reducing Litigation Exposure In the Absence of Existing or Threatened Litigation

In Palkon v. Maffei, C.A. No. 2023-0449-JTL, 2024 Del. Ch. LEXIS 48 (Del. Ch. Feb. 20, 2024) (Laster, V.C.) the Delaware Court of Chancery considered whether a controlling stockholder’s approval of transactions reincorporating two Delaware corporations in Nevada is subject to entire fairness review where there was a lack of procedural protections that would give the approval of the transactions the patina of arms-length bargaining. Because the stockholders’ derivative complaint contained allegations that (if true) established that the disputed transactions adversely affected investor protections, the Court of Chancery applied the inherently-factual “entire fairness” standard of review and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.Continue Reading Delaware Corporations Must Employ Procedural Safeguards When Approving a Reincorporation that Could Benefit a Controlling Stockholder to Avoid Entire Fairness Standard of Review

In Sirott v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 389 (Cal. App. May 5, 2022), the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal (Humes, J.) analyzed the ownership requirements a plaintiff must satisfy to pursue derivative claims on behalf of a limited liability company.  Under California Corporations Code § 17709.02 (“Section 17709.02”), a putative derivative plaintiff must show both “contemporaneous” and “continuous” ownership to proceed with a derivative lawsuit.  Subject to certain statutorily defined exceptions, the contemporaneous ownership prerequisite requires the plaintiff to plead that it was a member of the limited liability company at the time of the transaction or any part of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains took place.  The continuous ownership requirement, in turn, obligates the plaintiff to remain a member of the limited liability company through the conclusion of the litigation.  In Sirott, the plaintiff’s derivative claims were properly ordered dismissed because the plaintiff lacked standing after it lost its interest in the limited liability company—i.e., the real party in interest with respect to the derivative claims.    Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Clarifies that a Derivative Plaintiff Must Demonstrate Both “Contemporaneous” and “Continuous” Ownership to Maintain a Derivative Suit on Behalf of a Limited Liability Company

In Crest v. Padilla, No. 20STCV37513 (Cal. Super. Apr. 1, 2022), the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles (Green, J.) declared that Section 301.4 of the California Corporations Code is unconstitutional under the California state Constitution.  Section 301.4 requires publicly held corporations which have their principal executive offices located in California to include “underrepresented communities” on their boards of directors.  The trial court granted the taxpayer plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the statute violated equal protection clause of the California Constitution.  The court’s decision renders the constitutionality of Section 301.4 ripe for appellate review by the California Court of Appeal.
Continue Reading Los Angeles Superior Court Invalidates California Board Diversity Statute, Rendering It Ripe for Review by the California Court of Appeal

In Tola v. Bryant, No. 16150, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 241 (Cal. App. Mar. 24, 2022), the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal applied Delaware’s new formulation of the test for determining whether a stockholder has standing to assert derivative claims on behalf of a company.  Under the test articulated by the Delaware Supreme Court in United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Zuckerberg, 262 A.3d 1034, 1058 (Del. 2021), a stockholder of a Delaware corporation has standing to assert derivative claims when the stockholder can plead particularized facts, on a director-by-director basis, demonstrating that at least half of the board in place at the time the complaint is filed:
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Addresses Derivative Standing and Failure of Oversight Claims Under Delaware Law

On August 6, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) approved Nasdaq’s Board Diversity Rule (Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Rules 5605(f) and 5606), which requires listed companies to have at least two diverse board members or to explain their failure to meet the requirement, with some exceptions.  The Board Diversity Rule also requires companies to publish statistics on the diversity of their board members.  The rule is intended to increase transparency into the diversity of corporate boards, giving investors more information to consider when deciding which companies are worthy of investment.  As investors have increasingly voiced concern over enhanced diversity in corporate leadership, the Board Diversity Rule may not only increase board transparency, but also cause Nasdaq-listed companies to increase board diversity.
Continue Reading SEC Approves Nasdaq Diversity Rule

In Coster v. UIP Companies, Inc., No. 49-2020, 2021 WL 2644094 (Del. June 28, 2021), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a Court of Chancery ruling, No. 2018-0440-KSJM, 2020 WL 429906 (Del. Ch. Jan. 28, 2020) (McCormick, V.C.), that members of a board of directors did not breach their fiduciary duties when they approved a transaction with an “inequitable purpose” because the process and substance of the transaction were “entirely fair” to the aggrieved stockholder.  The Court held that even though the board’s action passed Delaware’s rigorous “entire fairness” review, the Court of Chancery should have further considered whether the board acted for inequitable reasons or for the primary purpose of interfering with the stockholder’s statutory or voting rights.  As the Supreme Court explained, “inequitable action does not become permissible simply because it is legally possible.”  Coster provides an important reminder to board members that ensuring a transaction is “entirely fair” does not necessarily shield directors from liability if the directors acted in bad faith or for the “primary purpose of thwarting” a stockholder’s franchise rights.
Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court Holds That Surviving “Entire Fairness” Review is Not Conclusive of a Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Where Directors Acted Inequitably

In In re WeWork Litigation, 2020 Del. Ch. LEXIS 270 (Del. Ch. Aug. 21, 2020) (Bouchard, C.), the Delaware Court of Chancery considered an issue of first impression:  Does the management of a Delaware corporation have the unilateral authority to preclude a director from obtaining the corporation’s privileged information?  The Court held it cannot.  The directors of Delaware corporations are entitled to share in legal advice the corporation receives and, subject to limited exceptions not at issue in WeWork, cannot be prevented from accessing the corporation’s privileged information.
Continue Reading Delaware Court of Chancery Clarifies that Management Cannot Unilaterally Curtail a Director’s Access to Corporation’s Privileged Information

In Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., No. 17-16193, 2019 WL 924827 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that statutes, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), do not constitute “rule[s] or regulation[s] of the Securities and Exchange Commission” (“SEC”) for purposes of determining whether an employee engaged in protected activity in a whistleblower claim under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”).  This decision clarifies the proper application of the express statutory language of Section 806.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds That Statutes Do Not Constitute “Rules or Regulations of the SEC” for Purposes of Sarbanes-Oxley Act Whistleblower Claims