In Avery L. Woods Trust v. Sahara Enterprises, Inc., C.A. No. 2020-0153-JTL (Del. Ch. July 22, 2020), the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) granted an inspection of books and records to Avery L. Woods (“Woods”), the trustee of the Avery L. Woods Trust (the “Trust” ) finding that the Trust’s stock valuation and investigation of possible mismanagement reasons for inspection sufficient and proper.Read More
In Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement Fund and Teamsters Local 443 Health Services & Insurance Plan v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., C.A. No 2019-0527-JTL (Del. Ch. Jan. 13, 2020), the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) granted the plaintiffs’ demand to inspect the defendant’s books and records. In so doing, the Court upheld the plaintiffs’ stated justifications for seeking review of the books and records as a proper purpose under Delaware law.Read More
In Paraflon Investments Ltd. v. Linkable Networks, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0611-JRS (Del. Ch. April 3, 2020), the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) granted, in part, stockholder Paraflon Investments, Ltd.’s (“Paraflon”) request, after a trial on a paper record, for corporate books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL where proper purpose was shown with respect to the desire to investigate mismanagement and wrongdoing.Read More
In High River Limited Partnership, Icahn Partners Master Fund LP, and Icahn Partners LP v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, C.A. No. 2019-0403-JRS (Del. Ch. November 14, 2019), the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) dismissed a demand by stockholders of Occidental Petroleum Corporation (“Occidental”) under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporate Law (“Section 220”) for documents and information relating to Occidental’s acquisition of Anadarko Petroleum and related transactions. The Court held that the stockholders’ demand for books and records to aid in a proxy contest did not constitute a proper purpose, and that a broad demand for corporate records was not necessary and essential to the stockholders’ purpose of challenging company management over its decision to enter into a transaction.
In Senetas Corporation, Ltd. v. DeepRadiology Corporation, C.A. No. 2019-0170-PWG (Del. Ch. July 30, 2019), the Delaware Court of Chancery allowed a stockholder’s books and records inspection despite objections raised by the defendant corporation because the stockholder established a proper purpose for the inspection by proving a credible basis from which the Court could infer mismanagement or wrongdoing may have occurred and because the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff’s stated purpose was offered under false pretenses.Read More
In Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT v. Calgon Carbon Corp., C.A. No. 2017-0910-MTZ (Del. Ch. Jan. 25, 2019), the Delaware Court of Chancery enforced an institutional stockholder’s demand for books and records under Title 8, Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“Section 220”). The Court found that the stockholder’s affidavit affirming the demand in substantially final form, although not in exact final form, did not violate Section 220’s “under oath” requirements where the only change between the versions was the addition of a signature and the date. The Court also found that the stockholder’s demand was not lawyer-driven under Wilkinson v. A. Schulman, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0138-VCL (Del. Ch. Nov. 13, 2017), where the stockholder’s goals of the demand and the purposes stated in the lawyer-drafted demand were not fundamentally misaligned, even where the stockholder’s representative could not articulate all the legal nuances of such purposes in deposition testimony.Read More
In Elow v. Express Scripts Holding Company, C.A. No.12721-VCMR and Khandhar v. Express Scripts Holding Company, C.A. No. 12734-VCMR (Del. Ch. May 31, 2017), the Court of Chancery held that plaintiff shareholder Clifford Elow’s (“Elow”) demand to inspect certain books and records of Express Scripts Holding Company (the “Company”) met all statutory requirements and stated a proper purpose, while plaintiff (and purported shareholder) Amitkumar Khandhar’s (“Khandhar”) demand did not. Thus, the Court granted Elow’s Section 220 demand subject to a confidentiality agreement and denied Khandhar’s demand.