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

As readers of this blog undoubtedly are aware, one of the provocative topics that has emerged in recent months is whether companies incorporated under the laws of Delaware should redomesticate under another state’s law, with Texas and Nevada as the alternative states typically under discussion. This ongoing debate has gained momentum in recent days, as additional firms have signaled an intent to move on from Delaware. There have also been a number of other key developments, including the introduction of legislative initiatives and an important court decision, providing further context for the ongoing discussion. Because the discussion of this topic is unlikely to end any time soon, it is important to recognize and understand the recent developments.Continue Reading The Delaware Redomestication Debate Heats Up