UK: Del. Courts Continue Limiting Books And Records Demands

Last Updated: 12 June 2019
Article by Stephanie Shimada and Matthew Solum

Section 220 of Title 8 of the Delaware Code allows a corporation’s stockholders to make a written demand to inspect the corporation’s “books and records.” While initially conceived as an expansion of the common law right of stockholders to monitor the performance of their agents in corporate affairs, 1 Section 220 has evolved into a tool that stockholders (and their lawyers) use to obtain discovery to pursue litigation against a corporation’s directors and officers. To make a Section 220 demand, a stockholder must, among other things, identify a proper purpose for the demand and the requested books and records must be “necessary” for that purpose.

Although books and records demands have been available for decades, there has been a recent upswing in their use as stockholders (including activist stockholders) have discovered the usefulness of Section 220 in obtaining materials for future litigation and campaigns. However, as Section 220 demands and disputes have increased, courts have imposed additional boundaries on their use. In particular, in recent years, courts have held that stockholders must demonstrate that they are not investigating conduct that has been statutorily exculpated and that they have good reason to request the production of emails.

Rising Use of 220 Demands to Prepare for Litigation

Stockholders are increasingly relying upon 220 demands in connection with mergers and acquisitions to gather information to potentially pursue damages claims after the closing of the transaction.2 For reference, we will call stockholders who serve these kinds of demands, “potential M&A plaintiffs.” These post-closing damages claims often come in the form of breach of fiduciary duty claims against the corporation’s board of directors. Potential M&A plaintiffs usually seek materials relating to the M&A sale process and aim to use that information to criticize the process.

Potential M&A plaintiffs are pursuing books and records demands in court and, in some cases, through to trial. In the past year alone, they have obtained books and records in three Section 220 trials following an M&A transaction. 3 For example, in Inter-Local Pension Fund Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Calgon Carbon Corp., stockholder Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT issued a demand to inspect defendant Calgon Carbon Corp.’s books and records under Section 220.4

Calgon had executed a merger agreement with a Japanese company named Kuraray Co. Ltd. for $1.1 billion. The fund’s stated purpose for its 220 demand was to “investigate the events leading to the [a]cquisition in order to determine whether it is appropriate to pursue litigation ... and [to investigate] the independence and disinterestedness of the directors generally with respect to the [a]cquisition.” Calgon rejected the demand and the fund sued in Delaware Chancery Court. After a trial, Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn held that the fund’s purposes were proper under Section 220 and that the fund was entitled to books and records necessary to allow it to investigate potential corporate wrongdoing.

In Morrison v. Berry,5 The Fresh Market Inc. filed a series of public disclosures in connection with its proposed transaction with Apollo Global Management LLC. The public disclosures included information about rollovers for The Fresh Market’s founder, Ray Berry, and his son, Brett Berry. A stockholder plaintiff then brought a Section 220 demand to investigate whether the company’s directors had breached their fiduciary duties during the sale process. The plaintiff eventually obtained what the Delaware Supreme Court described as “several key documents ... and a crucial e-mail from [a director’s] counsel to the company’s lawyers.”

This “crucial” email (the “Nov. 28 email”) was sent prior to the beginning of the sales process from Ray Berry’s counsel to Fresh Market’s board and allegedly suggested that Ray Berry had already agreed to roll over his shares if Apollo was the winning bidder. After obtaining these documents through her Section 220 demand, the plaintiff in Morrison brought a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Fresh Market’s board of directors, claiming that, because the board did not publicly disclose this key information about Ray Berry’s relationship with Apollo, the stockholders were misled. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claims and found that the merger was approved by a fully informed majority of stockholders.

The Delaware Supreme Court reversed. It analyzed the differences between the statements in the Nov. 28 email and the company’s public disclosures and found that the email suggested additional facts that the company did not disclose. Given this, the claims were allowed to proceed to discovery.

220 Demands and Activist Stockholders

Activist stockholders are also increasingly using books and records demands to gather information about corporations.6 They have done so to mixed success. In Highland Select Equity Fund LP v. Motient Corp.,7 an activist’s 220 demand was rejected because its purported purpose “verge[d] on being a ruse.” The activist had intended to file a proxy contest and had sufficient information to do so prior to issuing its demand. “Highland thus appear[ed] to have maintained its books and records demand in large part because it ... derived utility from the demand itself as a rhetorical platform.” Subsequent activist stockholders have had to demonstrate that they have a proper purpose and are not bringing their demand to harass or embarrass the corporation.8

Limitations on 220 Demands

Exculpated Conduct

The Delaware Supreme Court has recently made clear that the ability to obtain these documents for use in potential litigation is not unfettered. Alleged corporate wrongdoing by directors can be exculpated under Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law.9 This statute allows stockholders to adopt a provision protecting their directors from monetary liability for violations of the duty of care.10 The Delaware Supreme Court held in Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Abbvie Inc. that, in light of this statute, investigating wrongdoing is only a proper purpose for obtaining books and records under Section 220 “insofar as the investigation targets nonexculpated corporate wrongdoing.”11 This is because the potential wrongdoing must be actionable.

The Supreme Court’s Abbvie holding has been extended to the Section 141(e) context. Section 141(e) is a Delaware statute that states, in part, that a board member is “fully protected” in relying in good faith on the opinions of subject matter experts who have been selected with reasonable care by the corporation.12 In Beatrice Corwin Living Irrevocable Trust v. Pfizer Inc., 13 Judge Abigail LeGrow, sitting as a vice chancellor by designation, denied plaintiffs’ Section 220 demand based on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Abbvie.

The plaintiffs’ stated purpose for their books and records demand was to investigate possible mismanagement and evaluate potential litigation against the board. However, the only mismanagement or wrongdoing by the board that the plaintiffs raised was supposedly “failing to assure compliance with applicable accounting rules.” The court in Beatrice Corwin denied plaintiffs’ 220 demand because the board of directors relied upon KPMG in that regard, finding that “[t]he board’s reliance on KPMG’s opinion that Pfizer’s financial statements were prepared in accordance with GAAP protects the board from the claims the plaintiffs seek to investigate through the [d]emand.”

Because plaintiffs did not provide evidence that: (1) The board did not rely on KPMG; (2) The board did not believe the opinion to be within KPMG’s field of expertise; or (3) KPMG was not selected with reasonable care, the plaintiffs had not “overcome the presumptions of [Section 141(e)]” and the court could not infer nonexculpated breaches of fiduciary duty.

Email Production

Stockholders pursuing books and records under Section 220 with increasing frequency demand emails and other communications between officers and directors of the corporation as indicia of potential wrongdoing.14 The Delaware Supreme Court in KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Technologies Inc. provided clarity on this issue:

Ultimately, if a company observes traditional formalities, such as documenting its actions through board minutes, resolutions and official letters, it will likely be able to satisfy a [Section] 220 petitioner’s needs solely by producing those books and records. But if a company instead decides to conduct formal corporate business largely through informal electronic communications, it cannot use its own choice of medium to keep shareholders in the dark about the substantive information to which [Section] 220 entitles them.15

A company can therefore avoid producing emails if it can show that the relevant information is reflected in its formal records.

  Conclusion

While the above focuses on books and records demands under Delaware law, other states permit books and records demands to varying degrees. For example, in California, a shareholder can inspect “accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the shareholders and the board and committees of the board ... at any reasonable time during usual business hours, for a purpose reasonably related to such holder’s interests as a shareholder.” 16

In New York, “shareholders have both statutory and common-law rights to inspect a corporation’s books and records so long as the shareholders seek the inspection in good faith and for a valid purpose ... the common-law right of inspection is broader than the statutory right.” 17 Because of this difference, while stockholders still rely on both the statute and common law in their books and records petitions, their reliance on the permissive common law is more likely to be successful.18

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Footnotes

1 Melzer v. CNET Networks, Inc., 934 A.2d 912, 917 (Del. Ch. 2007).

2 See, e.g., In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. Derivative Litig., No. CV 2018-0058-JTL, 2019 WL 1224556 (Del. Ch. Mar. 15, 2019); In re Tangoe, Inc. Stockholders Litig., No. CV 2017-0650-JRS, 2018 WL 6074435 (Del. Ch. Nov. 20, 2018); Busch on Behalf of Richardson Elecs., Ltd. v. Richardson, No. CV 2017-0868-AGB, 2018 WL 5970776 (Del. Ch. Nov. 14, 2018); Tilden v. Cunningham, No. CV 2017-0837-JRS, 2018 WL 5307706 (Del. Ch. Oct. 26, 2018); In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litig., No. CV 12711-VCS, 2018 WL 1560293 (Del. Ch. Mar. 28, 2018), appeal refused sub nom. Musk v. Arkansas Teacher Ret. Sys., 184 A.3d 1292 (Del. 2018).

3 See, e.g., Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT v. Calgon Carbon Corp., No. CV 2017-0910-MTZ, 2019 WL 479082 (Del. Ch. Jan. 25, 2019); Mudrick Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Globalstar, Inc., No. CV 2018-0351-TMR, 2018 WL 3625680 (Del. Ch. July 30, 2018); In re UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. Section 220 Litig., No. CV 2017-0681-TMR, 2018 WL 1110849 (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2018), aff’d sub nom. UnitedHealth Grp. Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank as Tr. for Longview Largecap 500 Index Fund, 196 A.3d 885 (Del. 2018).

4 See Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT, 2019 WL 479082, at *1.

5 Morrison v. Berry, 191 A.3d 268 (Del. 2018), as revised (July 27, 2018).

6 See, e.g., Disney v. Walt Disney Co., 857 A.2d 444 (Del. Ch. 2004) (noting that activist shareholder obtained documents through a Section 220 demand but denying shareholder the ability to publicly disseminate the information as part of its campaign); Mudrick Capital Mgmt., L.P., 2018 WL 3625680 (holding that activist shareholder was entitled to emails and special committee materials).

7 Highland Select Equity Fund LP v. Motient Corp., 906 A.2d 156 (Del. Ch. 2006).

8 See Mudrick Capital Mgmt., L.P., 2018 WL 3625680; Caspian Select Credit Master Fund Ltd. v. Key Plastics Corp., No. CIV.A. 8625-VCN, 2014 WL 686308, at *1 (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2014) (finding that activist shareholder had a proper purpose and distinguishing Highland).

9 “A provision eliminating or limiting the personal liability of a director to the corporation or its stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director, provided that such provision shall not eliminate or limit the liability of a director: (i) For any breach of the director’s duty of loyalty to the corporation or its stockholders; (ii) for acts or omissions not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law; (iii) under § 174 of this title; or (iv) for any transaction from which the director derived an improper personal benefit.” Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 102(b)(7) (West).

10 The statute does not allow exculpation for breaches of duty of loyalty or acts or omissions done in bad faith. See Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 102(b)(7) (West).

11 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Auth. v. Abbvie Inc., No. CV 10374-VCG, 2015 WL 1753033, at *13 (Del. Ch. Apr. 15, 2015), judgment entered sub nom. Se. Pennsylvania Transp Auth. v. Abbvie, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2015), and judgment entered sub nom. Rizzolo v. Abbvie Inc. (Del. Ch. 2015), and aff’d, 132 A.3d 1 (Del. 2016).

12 “(e) A member of the board of directors, or a member of any committee designated by the board of directors, shall, in the performance of such member's duties, be fully protected in relying in good faith upon the records of the corporation and upon such information, opinions, reports or statements presented to the corporation by any of the corporation's officers or employees, or committees of the board of directors, or by any other person as to matters the member reasonably believes are within such other person's professional or expert competence and who has been selected with reasonable care by or on behalf of the corporation.” Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 141 (West).

13 Beatrice Corwin Living Irrevocable Trust v. Pfizer Inc., 2016 WL 4548101 (Del. Ch. Aug. 31, 2016).

14 See, e.g., In re UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. Section 220 Litig., 2018 WL 1110849 (holding that plaintiffs were entitled to books and records but not email communications); Mudrick Capital Mgmt., L.P., 2018 WL 3625680, at *9 (holding that plaintiff was entitled to emails and other communications because the produced documents were inadequate and suggested that emails were necessary).

15 No. 281, 2018, 2019 WL 347934, at *2 (Del. Jan. 29, 2019) (reversing the Chancery Court’s denial of emails because it was shown that formal books and records did not exist on the issue).

16 See Innes v. Diablo Controls, Inc., 248 Cal. App. 4th 139, 142, 203 Cal. Rptr. 3d 375, 376 (2016); see also Cal. Corp. Code § 1601 (West).

17 Ret. Plan for Gen. Employees of City of N. Miami Beach v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 120 A.D.3d 1052, 1055, 992 N.Y.S.2d 220, 223 (1st Dep’t 2014); see also N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 624 (McKinney).

18 See, e.g., Pokoik v. 575 Realties, Inc., 143 A.D.3d 487, 488, 38 N.Y.S.3d 553, 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) (reversing trial court and granting stockholders’ petition to obtain books and records of both the corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary under the common law).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions