ARTICLE
10 February 2022

Must Board Meeting Notices Be Ingenuous?

AM
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

Contributor

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP logo
Allen Matkins, founded in 1977, is a California-based law firm with more than 200 attorneys in four major metropolitan areas of California: Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, and San Francisco. The firm's areas of focus include real estate, construction, land use, environmental and natural resources, corporate and securities, real estate and commercial finance, bankruptcy, restructurings and creditors' rights, joint ventures, and tax; labor and employment, and trials, litigation, risk management, and alternative dispute resolution in all of these areas. For more information about Allen Matkins please visit www.allenmatkins.com.
Yesterday's post briefly discussed former Chancellor William Chandler's ruling in Fogel v. U.S. Energy Systems, Inc., 2007 Del. Ch. LEXIS 178.
United States California Corporate/Commercial Law

Yesterday's post briefly discussed former Chancellor William Chandler's ruling in Fogel v. U.S. Energy Systems, Inc.,  2007 Del. Ch. LEXIS 178. In finding that no valid board meeting had occurred, Chancellor Chandler stated "when a director is tricked or deceived about the true purpose of a board meeting, and where that director subsequently does not participate in that meeting, any action purportedly taken there is invalid and void" (citing Koch v. Stearn, 1992 Del. Ch. LEXIS 163 which was later vacated for mootness under the Rule of Vacatur, Stearn v. Koch, 628 A.2d 44 (1992). I will leave the question of whether Chancellor Chandler is correct with respect to Delaware law, but note that Vice Chancellor Parsons expressed his disagreement in OptimisCare v. Waite, 2015 Del. Ch. LEXIS 222.

As far as California is concerned, no published California opinion cites Fogel. However, Section 307(a)(3) appears to reject Fogel  by providing that "A notice, or waiver of notice, need not specify the purpose of any regular or special meeting of the board". However, directors who resort to chicanery to lure another director to a meeting arguably breach their statutory obligation to perform their duties in good faith. Cal. Corp. Code § 309(a).

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More