United States: Delaware Supreme Court Reverses Dismissals Of Claims Against Directors And Emphasizes Duty To Make Proper Disclosures To Stockholders

A pair of recent decisions from the Delaware Supreme Court in connection with completed acquisitions of public companies emphasizes the importance of providing, before closing, proper disclosures to stockholders in order to defend directors, after closing, from stockholder claims.

In both cases, the Court of Chancery had relied on the Corwin doctrine — which gives directors the benefit of the business judgment rule in most cases when a transaction has been ratified by a fully informed and uncoerced majority of disinterested stockholders — to dismiss stockholder claims that directors breached their fiduciary duties. In both cases, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the disclosures made to stockholders had omitted material information or had been materially misleading. According to the Supreme Court, the Corwin doctrine must be "careful[ly]" applied, given its potentially dispositive impact, and cannot be supported by "partial and elliptical disclosures."

As has become increasingly common, the lawsuits in both cases were filed after the transactions had closed. The directors thus did not have the opportunity to respond to the lawsuits by amending or supplementing the prior disclosures. The cases demonstrate the need, before stockholder action (such as a vote or a tender) is taken, for directors and companies to make proper disclosure to stockholders so that the directors can obtain the benefit of the business judgment rule and end litigation at an early stage.

Corwin Doctrine

In 2015, the Delaware Supreme Court laid out what has now become known as the Corwin doctrine.1 In effect, the doctrine holds that, in many cases, a disinterested stockholder vote can "cleanse" purported breaches of fiduciary duty, if that vote is fully informed and uncoerced. As the Supreme Court explained, when stockholders can "easily protect themselves at the ballot box by simply voting 'no,'" the benefits of a standard of review more intrusive than the business judgment rule are outweighed by the higher costs of litigation and inhibitions on risk-taking.

Morrison v. Berry (The Fresh Market)2

In Morrison v. Berry, the company had agreed to be acquired by a private equity firm in a transaction in which the company's founder had agreed with the acquirer to roll over his existing equity stake into shares of the acquirer's entity, rather than selling his shares for cash along with the other stockholders. The company issued a Schedule 14D-9 with the board of directors' recommendation that stockholders accept the tender offer. After the acquisition closed, a plaintiff shareholder filed suit against the directors for breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Court of Chancery, after reviewing the company's disclosures, found that the transaction was "an exemplary case of the utility of the ratification doctrine, as set forth in Corwin."

The Supreme Court, however, found that the company had failed to disclose several facts (according to the plaintiff's complaint and the then-existing record) that "would have helped [stockholders] reach a materially more accurate assessment of the probative value of the [company's] sale process":

  • the company's founder had agreed with the acquirer, prior to the board's consideration of the acquirer's proposal, to roll over his equity interest if the acquirer reached a deal with the board, but the 14D-9 did not disclose that agreement and, moreover, did not disclose that the founder had denied the existence of that agreement when asked by the other board members;
  • the 14D-9 stated that the founder was willing to consider offers from other parties, but it did not include his statement to the board that he was unaware of any other private equity buyers with whom he would consider an equity rollover, as opposed to a cash offer;
  • the founder had told the board that that it should pursue a sale of the company, in light of the low valuation of the company and the complexity of planned changes in the business, and that if the company remained public he would "give serious consideration to selling" his shares because the company was not "well positioned to prosper as a public company," but the 14D-9 did not disclose either the founder's rationale or the founder's intent; and
  • the 14D-9 stated that the company had formed a strategic transaction committee because it "could become" subject to shareholder pressure, but it did not disclose that the company had already become subject to shareholder pressure.

The Chancery Court had found that disclosure of the founder's intent to sell his shares would not have made stockholders less likely to tender. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized, "[t]hat is not the test." The Supreme Court reiterated that "[o]mitted information is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable stockholder would have considered the omitted information important when deciding whether to tender her shares or seek appraisal." The definition includes facts that a stockholder would "generally want to know in making a decision, regardless of whether it actually sways a stockholder one way or the other, as a single piece of information rarely drives a stockholder's vote."

Appel v. Berkman (Diamond Resorts International)3

The Morrison decision reiterates some of the themes raised by the Delaware Supreme Court earlier this year in Appel v. Berkman. In that case, the board of directors had recommended that stockholders tender their shares in a negotiated tender offer. The company's Schedule 14D-9 disclosed that the company's founder, largest stockholder, and chairman had abstained from the board vote, but it did not disclose that he had abstained because he was disappointed in the price and in company management for not having run the business in a manner that would command a higher price and he believed it was not the right time to sell the company. Two months after the deal closed, the plaintiff stockholder filed suit.

The Supreme Court held that the founder's reason for abstaining from the board vote was a material fact that should have been disclosed. The Supreme Court declined to find that a director's reasons for abstaining or dissenting must always be disclosed, but found that courts should consider whether such disclosure is required to ensure that other disclosures do not present a materially misleading picture. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that, in that case, "the 14D-9's representation to stockholders that they would 'receive a fair price in the merger was materially misleading without an additional simultaneous, tempering disclosure' that [the founder] believed that this was 'a bad time to sell' and had expressed the reasons for that view to the board."

Key Takeaway

In many respects, these cases follow a familiar fact pattern: a transaction is announced, a shareholder files suit, and the company's disclosures are alleged to be inadequate based on internal documents produced by the company. In past cases, the litigation routinely began before the transaction closed. Accordingly, before the stockholder vote or tender actually took place, the company could often have disclosed additional information as a potential avenue for settling the case, thereby preserving the transaction and ameliorating the risk of director liability. However, over the past few years, Delaware courts have pushed back against the profusion of shareholder litigation in acquisitions. Partly as a result of that push, those stockholder suits that are being filed increasingly are being filed after the transaction closes, eliminating the potential response of making additional disclosures.

Transacting parties and their directors, in appropriate cases, can seek the protection of the Corwin doctrine and limit their exposure to liability in this evolving landscape by making proper disclosures. Nonetheless, the Delaware Supreme Court continues to signal that these protections come at a price:  complete disclosure, before the stockholders act, of the material information in the transaction.

Summer Associate Ben Lucy contributed to the writing of this alert.


1 Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015) (available here).

2 Morrison v. Berry, No. 445, 2017 (Del. July 9, 2018) (available here).

3 Appel v. Berkman, 180 A.3d 1055 (Del. 2018) (available here).

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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.


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.


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