Financial Times, February 12, 2018 article: "Shareholders win a new legal tool to challenge M&A deals" [Another rediscovery of stockholder rights to corporate records]

Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

This public program was initiated in collaboration with The Conference Board Task Force on Corporate/Investor Engagement and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies. The Forum is providing continuing reports of the issues that concern this program's participants, as summarized  in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference


Related Projects 2012-2019

For graphed analyses of company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

See also analyses of

Shareholder Support Rankings


Forum distribution:

Another rediscovery of stockholder rights to corporate records


For the court decision reported below, see

Note: For past Forum use of Delaware "Section 220" stockholder demands for records, see March 11, 2001 New York Times | Market Watch: "In the War on Gibberish, a New Investor Ally and subsequent demonstrations in its early pubic programs for shareholders of Computer Associates (2001, renewed 2004) and Farmer Bros. (2002), with continuing applications as recently as the buyout of Dell Inc. in which Mr. Icahn was actively involved (2013).


Source: Financial Times, February 12, 2018 article


Opinion Inside Business

Shareholders win a new legal tool to challenge M&A deals

Using the courts to wring a higher price from buyers had been getting harder until now

Carl Icahn made a '220 demand' at Sandridge Energy, where he is in dispute with the management © Reuters

Sujeet Indap

FEBRUARY 12, 2018


When Carl Icahn was upset in January over what he claimed was mismanagement at the fracking company SandRidge Energy, where he owned 13 per cent, he did not just tweet mercilessly.


In a public letter, Mr Icahn also made a “220 demand” upon Sandridge, using an obscure section of the Delaware corporate law code under which shareholders can request corporate books and records if they suspect wrongdoing and want to find proof.


Obscure until now. Suddenly the 220 inspection demand is on the radar of shareholders’ lawyers, who want to challenge the process and price of M&A deals. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have increasingly been stymied when trying to use the courts to wring a higher price from acquirers. But the 220 angle could swing the pendulum back.


A string of recent court decisions in Delaware — the state where most American companies are incorporated — have made lawsuits that challenge M&A transactions not only difficult to win but tricky even to bring.


Broadly, this has been a welcome development. The rulings have largely eliminated the nuisance lawsuits that used to plague M&A, where companies were targeted the moment they announced a deal by attorneys claiming the price was too low. This scourge mostly faded because of a 2015 ruling involving the internet company, Trulia (though clever plaintiffs’ attorneys are increasingly trying their luck in federal courts).


More substantive cases have also got harder. Since another landmark 2015 decision known as Corwin, companies can have breach-of-fiduciary-duty lawsuits effectively dismissed if shareholders had approved the deal in a fully-informed vote.


The idea the Delaware courts now promote is that, as long as shareholders know the key circumstances of transactions and are comfortable with the terms of a deal, there is no reason for judges to intrude upon a transaction. There is a general feeling that the reforms enshrined in Trulia and Corwin that cull deal litigation have been sensible.


Yet the worry is that instances of real wrongdoing — for example, tainted M&A advice from the investment bank RBC over the sale of ambulance company Rural/Metro cost the bank $100m a few years ago — cannot be easily investigated if courts are quick to dismiss lawsuits.


Enter the 220 demand. Some Delaware practitioners have alighted on this for getting aggrieved shareholders a chance to determine if a company improperly sold itself on the cheap.


Traditionally, 220 demands have been used by shareholders who want to sue a board of directors or management, not for themselves as such but on behalf of the company in a so-called derivative lawsuit, if they suspect wrongdoing or a breach of duty. Shareholders, of course, are not ensconced in day-to-day corporate affairs, so the 220 demand is a way for them to request access to basic corporate records that could help them make their claim.


It is easy to see how those corporate records could be helpful for anyone trying to open up a case of the RBC-Rural/Metro kind.


And so it is easy also to see why corporate defence lawyers are now trying to shut down the gambit.


The issue has just been raised in Delaware Court of Chancery in the case of Apollo Global’s $2bn buyout of telco West Corporation. West argued that, because it has received a fully-informed shareholder ratification for the deal, as per the Corwin standard, the court should deny shareholders’ books and records request.



Expect legal skirmishes to come over exactly what information companies should be forced to surrender



The judge disagreed. Shareholders could not reasonably be expected to discover improprieties in the company’s sale process just from public filings, vice-chancellor Joseph Slights ruled in December, and the court had long encouraged high-quality complaints from shareholders that used the “tools at hand” like 220 demands to do the hard work of investigating corporate wrongdoing.

Shareholders need only show a “credible basis” — the lowest burden of proof — that wrongdoing occurred and that the information request is essential for investigation.

With that, Delaware has opened up a new avenue for attorneys looking to challenge M&A deals, and the next frontier in the never-ending war between dissident shareholders and unrepentant companies.

Expect legal skirmishes to come over exactly what information companies should be forced to surrender. Standard internal deal documents might be unsatisfactory, particularly if companies are now encouraged to keep board minutes and pitchbooks intentionally bland.

Litigants can be expected to fight for email correspondence among board members as well, says Randall Baron, a prominent shareholders’ attorney. “The battle will be over what documents plaintiffs are entitled to,” he said.

Carl Icahn can be dismissed at times as a grandstander, but with his use of the 220 action, he might be on to the next big activist trend.


Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2018.




This Forum program was open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the purpose of this public Forum's program was to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant was expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated in 2012 in collaboration with The Conference Board and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices. The website is being maintained to provide continuing reports of the issues addressed in the program, as summarized in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.