SHARE

December 21, 2021

Delaware Court Limits Former Directors' Access to Privileged Information

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content.
Register Now

Delaware's Chancery Court recently blocked two former directors from obtaining privileged communications between a corporation and its counsel in the context of the former directors' pursuit of personal claims against the entity.

Delaware has consistently held a director's access to information is "essentially unfettered," e.g. Kalisman v. Friedman (Del. Ch. Apr. 17, 2013). In SerVaas v. Ford Smart Mobility LLC (Del. Ch. Nov. 9, 2021), Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will noted three exceptions: (i) a contract limiting access; (ii) the existence of a special committee, of which the director is not a member, and which retains separate counsel; and (iii) and where "sufficient adversity exists between the director and the [entity] such that the director could no longer have a reasonable expectation that he was a client of the board's counsel." Op. at 6.

The SerVaas plaintiffs claimed they were wrongfully terminated shortly before deferred compensation rights were scheduled to vest, and sought discovery of all privileged documents from when they were directors. Explaining that "[a] director's right to information is ‘correlative with his duty to protect and preserve the corporation,'" the Court applied the third exception and held that granting plaintiffs access "to pursue personal breach of contract claims would be inconsistent with the purpose of director information rights." Op. at 7. The Court did not address whether "adversity" is determined as of the time of the director's service, or as of when the demand for access is made.

Ballard Spahr can help Delaware entities minimize the risk present or former directors who are adverse to the entity will invade the entity's attorney-client relationship. For assistance and more information, please contact our attorneys.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Ballard Spahr

New York Restricts Automated Decision Making in Employment

By Timothy Dickens Ballard Spahr August 29 , 2022

Businesses operating in New York City should be aware of a local law addressing the use of automated employment screening and decision-making tools coming into effect on January 1, 2023.

Status Update: Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate Injunction Narrowed

By Lila A. Sevener Ballard Spahr August 29 , 2022

On August 26, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit narrowed the nationwide injunction of Executive Order 14042, which requires federal contractors and employees who work on or in connection with a covered federal contract, or share a workplace with another employee who works on or in connection with such contracts, to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Unions Cannot Force OSHA to Issue Permanent COVID Standard

By Shannon D. Farmer Ballard Spahr August 26 , 2022

On August 26, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit turned back efforts by a group of unions seeking to force the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to quickly issue a permanent rule establishing protections for healthcare workers from COVID-19.

More From Securities Litigation

U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses as 'Improvidently Granted' Case on Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege

By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris Jackson Lewis P.C. January 30 , 2023

In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed the writ of certiorari granted in In re: Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, writing only that it was “improvidently granted.”

This Week in 340B: January 17 - 23, 2023

By Emily Jane Cook McDermott Will & Emery January 26 , 2023

This weekly series provides brief summaries to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country.

Your Gang Did What!? No Matter—No Forfeiture of IP

By Kat Lynch McDermott Will & Emery January 26 , 2023

In a unique case blending intellectual property and criminal law, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that a district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a motorcycle club and upheld the lower court’s finding that the club did not have to forfeit its collective membership marks.

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...