Delaware

Subscribe to Delaware via RSS

In late March (as discussed here), and as part of its effort to try to stem the flow of corporate departures from the state, the Delaware legislature enacted S.B. 21, which made a number of significant revisions to the state’s corporations code. As I noted in a prior post, a number of parties in lawsuits pending in the state’s courts have raised constitutionality challenges to S.B. 21. Late last week, a Vice Chancellor certified two questions to the state’s Supreme Court. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the questions, apparently on a fast-track basis. The certification of the questions and the Supreme Court’s response ensure that the constitutionality questions will be quickly reviewed.Continue Reading S.B. 21 Constitutionality Questions Certified to Del. Supreme Court

Sarah Abrams

Last fall the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed, as improvidently granted, the writ of certiorari in two pending securities lawsuits, including in the Meta Platforms/Facebook case (as discussed here). The Court’s dismissal of the writ of certiorari in the Facebook case had obvious implications for the immediate litigants in the case, as it left the prior circuit court ruling standing. But the dismissal also has important implications for litigants in other cases involving the same issues as were raised in the Facebook case.

In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, considers the implication for those other litigants in those other cases in light of the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the writ of certiorari in the Facebook case. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors in topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Sarah’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Location, Location, Location

In order to try to stem the supposed tide of Delaware corporations reincorporating in other states (particularly Texas and Nevada), Delaware recently enacted a set of revisions to its corporate law. Whether or not the legislative changes are sufficient to reduce the number of so-called “DExits” remains to be seen. But the other states are not just standing by idly waiting to see what happens. They have been at work in their own corporate law laboratories. As discussed below, the legislatures of both Texas and Nevada have in recent days both passed significant revisions to their respective corporate laws. The changes not only represent significant shifts in the corporate law arena, but also could entail significant changes in the corporate litigation world, as well.Continue Reading Delaware Amended Its Corporate Laws, So Texas and Nevada Did, Too

John Orr

As I noted at the time, in late March, the Delaware legislature enacted important revisions to the state’s General Corporations Law. In the following guest post, John Orr, D&O Liability Product Leader for WTW’s FINEX practice, North America, takes a look at the new law and considers the D&O liability and insurance implications. This arrticle first appeared in WTW’s FINEX Observer publication (here) and was republished by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (here). I would like to thank John for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is John’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Changes in Delaware Corporate Law: A D&O Liability and Insurance Perspective

In late March, Delaware enacted S.B. 21, legislation calculated to encourage companies to incorporate in the state, and to stay in the stay, rather than incorporating or reincorporating elsewhere. The bill included measures that could affect corporate litigation in Delaware in ways that may undercut litigation efforts of shareholders (and their lawyers). The plaintiffs’ lawyers apparently are prepared to fight back.

Earlier this week, in a new lawsuit involving Acushnet Holdings Corp., plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a Delaware Chancery Court complaint that, among other things, challenges the constitutionality of S.B. 21. This new suit joins earlier litigation previously filed also challenging S.B. 21’s constitutionality, as discussed below.  A copy of the latest complaint, filed in Chancery Court on May 5, 2025, can be found here. (Hat tip to Anthony Rickey, of Margrave Law LLC, who posted the complaint in a LinkedIn post, here.)Continue Reading Claimants Challenge S.B. 21 Constitutionality

Sarah Abrams

One of the current hot topics is corporate and securities law is whether Delaware companies should reincorporate in other states, particularly in the states of Nevada or Texas. In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, examines the state of incorporation of the new Texas Stock Exchange, which, surprisingly, turns out to be Delaware. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her article on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Sarah’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: The TXSE is Domiciled in Delaware

The preclusive effect of the “bump-up” exclusion typically found in most D&O insurance policies has been frequently litigated topic. In the following guest post, Barry Buchman, Michael Scanlon, and Jake Todd review recent case law developments relating to the scope of the bump-up exclusion’s preclusive effect. Buchman is a partner, Scanlon is a counsel, and Todd is an associate in the insurance recovery group of Haynes and Boone, LLP. This article is an update of the authors’ prior guest post about the bump-up exclusion on this site, here. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their author as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Bump-Up Exclusion: Recent Delaware Decisions Support Policyholders

In late March, in order to try to stop a perceived flood of Delaware companies reincorporating in other states (in particular, Nevada and Texas), the Delaware legislature enacted a significant re-write of important sections of its General Corporation Law (DGCL).  Even though it has just been a few short weeks since the Delaware legislation was enacted, it is not too early to start asking whether the legislative changes will stop Delaware companies from reincorporating in other states. As discussed below, early indications seem to suggest that notwithstanding the legislative changes, at least some Delaware corporations will continue to seek to reincorporate elsewhere.Continue Reading Will Delaware’s Recent Corporate Law Revisions Stop Reincorporations?

On Tuesday, March 25, 2025, the Delaware House of Representatives passed S.B. 21, the legislation designed to try to fight back against the move by some Delaware companies to reincorporate elsewhere, particularly in Texas or Nevada. The Delaware Senate previously passed the bill, which has been called the “most significant single-year revision of Delaware’s corporate code since at least 1967.   Delaware Governor Matt quickly signed the legislation the same day as the House passed the bill. While the legislation is primarily intended to try to stem the departures of Delaware companies to other states, it could also have a significant impact on future litigation in the state, as discussed below.Continue Reading Delaware Bill Meant to Stem Corporate Departures Enacted

In the immediate aftermath of the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Marchand v. Barnhill, which revitalized so-called Caremark claims for breach of the duty of oversight, one question I was asked was whether claimants might seek to assert breach of the duty of oversight claims in the context of cybersecurity and data privacy issues. Claimants did, in fact, subsequently raise Caremark claims in connection with the high-profile date breaches at Marriott and SolarWinds, but in each case, the Delaware Chancery Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss (as discussed here and here, respectively), raising questions about the viability of duty of oversight claims in the cybersecurity context.

Notwithstanding the less than promising track record for these kinds of claims, in a recent article, NYU Law Professor Jennifer Arlen argues that cybersecurity-related claims for breach of the duty of oversight should support Caremark liability in at least one class of cases – that is, cases relating to companies for whom cybersecurity is a “mission critical legal risk” and in which it is alleged that the company had inadequate cybersecurity that risked (and later caused) substantial harm to businesses and government agency customers, and that the company had misled the customers through statements that were designed to defraud the customers into believing that the company’s cybersecurity systems were materially better than they were. Professor Arlen’s March 18, 2025, post on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance about Caremark claims in the cybersecurity context can be found here.Continue Reading Cybersecurity and the Duty of Oversight