SHARE

June 17, 2022

Delaware Chancery Court Rejects Corporate Charter Provision Purporting To Alter Judicial Review Standard

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

Key Takeaways

  • Unlike broad authority to modify fiduciary standards granted to alternative entities (such as LLCs), corporations have “limited” power that does not include authority to modify the judicial review standard.

Delaware's Chancery Court recently invalidated a charter provision that purported to make certain Board decisions "conclusive and binding," finding the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) does not permit corporations to limit the scope of judicial review of fiduciary conduct. 

In Totta v. CCSB Fin. Corp., (Del. Ch. May 31, 2022), a longtime stockholder launched a proxy challenge to an incumbent Board. The Board invoked a charter provision prohibiting stockholders from voting more than 10 percent of the corporation's stock, and instructed the inspector of elections not to count votes above the limit. The insurgent challenged the count, arguing that application of the provision deprived it of victory.

The charter provision purported to make any good faith "constructions, applications, or determinations" by the Board regarding the vote-limit provision "conclusive and binding on the Corporation and its stockholders." The incumbent Board argued the provision required the court to review the challenged conduct under deferential business judgment standard - as opposed to a more exacting standard applicable where fiduciaries take actions affecting election contests.

Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick disagreed, holding corporation governance agreements "can only eliminate or modify fiduciary duties and the attendant judicial standards of review to the extent expressly permitted" by the DGCL. Unlike broad authority to modify fiduciary standards granted to alternative entities (such as LLCs), corporations have "limited" power that does not include authority to modify the judicial review standard. 

Totta illustrates the impact an entity's legal form may have in fiduciary litigation and underscores the need to examine the corporate form carefully to ensure the principles in their governing agreements are effective. Ballard Spahr's attorneys can assist in selecting the optimal form for your business entity, in crafting and reviewing structure and governance agreements.

Our Securities Enforcement and Corporate Governance Litigation Practice advises companies, their officers, and directors, on every type of securities and corporate governance claim-from derivative actions and regulatory or internal investigations to special committee representations and significant shareholder class actions. Our attorneys have the experience to identify and avoid potential obstacles in a case, a demonstrated ability to innovate, and a track record of success in the courtroom and through alternative dispute resolution.

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 Corporate Governance

SEC Adopts Amendments to Share Repurchase Disclosure Rules

By Tricia Branker Greenberg Traurig May 24 , 2023

On May 3, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments to issuer share repurchase disclosure rules, aimed at providing investors with enhanced information to enable them to better “assess the efficiency, purposes, and impacts of share repurchases.”

Are Syndicated Term Loans Securities Under Reves v. Ernst & Young? 2nd Circuit Solicits SEC Views

By Daria K. Boxer Greenberg Traurig May 18 , 2023

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to share its views on the issue of whether syndicated term loans are securities for purposes of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), under the four-prong “family resemblance” test enumerated in Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990).

EU Commission Adopts New Merger Simplification Package

By Jacques Buhart McDermott Will & Emery May 12 , 2023

On April 20, 2023, the EU Commission (Commission) adopted and published a package to simplify the procedures for reviewing concentrations under Regulation (EC) 139/2004 of January 20, 2004 (European Union Merger Regulation – EUMR). This package includes a set of three materials comprising (i) a revised Merger Implementing Regulation (Implementing Regulation), (ii) a Notice on Simplified Procedure (Notice), and (iii) a Communication on the Transmission of Documents to the Commission (Communication).

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...