Financial Times, June 21, 2024, article: "Corporate law changes in Delaware would favour big shareholders" [Change in corporate law supporting private shareholder negotiations]

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:

Change in corporate law supporting private shareholder negotiations

 

For recent Forum attention to the controversies among professionals concerning the new law reported below, see

 

Source: Financial Times, June 21, 2024, article

Corporate governance

Corporate law changes in Delaware would favour big shareholders

US state’s status as premiere corporate home in flux as companies and shareholders disagree over board powers

The Delaware Court of Chancery building in Wilmington, Delaware. The court is one of the most prestigious corporate law venues in the US © Bloomberg

Sujeet Indap in New York JUNE 21 2024


 

Companies incorporated in Delaware would be able to bypass their own boards and cut deals more easily with significant shareholders under a controversial law passed this week in the state that is home to some of the biggest US companies.

The changes, approved by the Delaware House of Representatives on Thursday night and the Delaware state senate last week, now go to the governor, who is expected to sign the bill into law.

Supporters of the bill say it keeps up with market trends and will cement Delaware as the leading domicile for big businesses. But its critics told lawmakers that the amendments to the state’s corporate code will fundamentally alter the bedrock relationship between directors and shareholders.

The amendments were drafted in response to three different decisions made by one of the country’s pre-eminent business courts, the Delaware Court of Chancery, in recent months that some corporate lawyers believed had improperly hamstrung boards of directors.

The most controversial ruling, which was handed down in February, invalidated an agreement the investment bank Moelis & Co had struck with its founder Ken Moelis, which gave him the power to unilaterally make important company decisions, shunting aside the board’s prerogatives.

In the Moelis decision, the chancery court held that Delaware corporations, even those with a single large shareholder, could not contract away fundamental legal powers that belong to a company’s board. The legislation passed by Delaware lawmakers would allow companies to more easily strike such shareholder agreements.

The three amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law, which were proposed in late March, were formulated by corporate lawyers who are part of a committee of the state’s bar association panel that suggests statutory changes to the legislature.

Lawyers supporting the changes said that unless they were enacted, plaintiffs lawyers would spark a frenzy of nuisance lawsuits over existing shareholder agreements that are common for public companies that have private equity or venture capital backers.

“The uncertainties exposed by the Moelis decision are too widespread to be left to case-by-case evaluation, and too disruptive to fester for a year or more without legislative guidance, ”wrote Larry Hamermesh, a professor of law at Widener University, in a letter to Delaware lawmakers.

But a group of critics including two Delaware judges faulted lawmakers for bringing the legislation before a higher court had weighed in on the Moelis decision on appeal. Some corporate law firms as well as dozens of other law professors said that the updated corporate code would upset what they described as the basic principle of corporations: that boards were empowered to make independent decisions on behalf of all shareholders.

“The more entity governance moves out of the corporate charter and into personal contracts, the more Delaware risks losing its grip over corporate governance,” said Ann Lipton a professor at Tulane University.

Delaware Senate majority leader Bryan Townsend, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement to the FT on Friday: “One of the key reasons Delaware is the preferred jurisdiction for corporations and alternative entities is the General Assembly’s commitment to being responsive to market and legal developments and ensuring clarity in the Delaware Code.”

The vast majority of large US public companies are incorporated in Delaware, which is widely recognised for its sophisticated legal community and deep corporate law. But recent months have proved tense in the small mid-Atlantic state. Elon Musk has been fighting a recent decision that invalidated a $56bn pay award and has successfully lobbied Tesla shareholders to move its domicile to Texas. In the process he has derided Delaware and its courts, and moved two of his private companies from Delaware to other states.

Shareholders and companies had historically favoured Delaware for its even-handedness. Some now worry that the balance has been tilted to the company side.

Charles Elson, a legal scholar regarded as the dean of the Delaware legal community and who testified before the state legislature opposing the corporate code amendments, told the FT: “The changes will have a negative impact on the investment community’s view of Delaware as a neutral protector of investor capital.”

 


Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2024. All rights reserved.

 

 

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 access@shareholderforum.com.

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.