'Salzberg' Opens Door to Creativity in the 'Outer Band' of 'Intra-Corporate Affairs'
This holding leaves the door open to Delaware corporations adopting additional charter provisions regulating such intra-corporate claims.
April 08, 2020 at 11:50 AM
7 minute read
In Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, No. 346, 2019, at *3 (Del. Mar. 18, 2020). the Delaware Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Karen Valihura, upheld the facial validity of federal-forum provisions (FFPs)—charter provisions adopted by Delaware corporations requiring actions arising under the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933 Act) to be filed exclusively in federal court. Emphasizing its "broadly enabling" scope, the court held Section 102(b)(1) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) authorizes Delaware corporations to adopt charter provisions regulating activity within an "outer band" of "intra-corporate affairs" existing beyond the "internal corporate claims" addressed by Sections 102(f) and 115. This holding leaves the door open to Delaware corporations adopting additional charter provisions regulating such intra-corporate claims.
The basic principles underlying the Supreme Court's holding in Salzberg were developed in several recent high-profile Delaware decisions and statutory enactments, including Boilermakers Local 154 Retirement Fund v. Chevron, 73 A.3d 934 (Del. Ch. 2013), ATP Tour v. Deutscher Tennis Bund, 91 A.3d 554 (Del. 2014), and DGCL Section 115, each of which addressed bylaws adopted to regulate disputes involving Delaware corporations. In Boilermakers, the Delaware Court of Chancery confirmed that DGCL Section 109(b) authorizes Delaware corporations to adopt bylaws designating the proper forum for claims relating to "internal corporate governance," and distinguished as unauthorized by DGCL Section 109(b) bylaws that purport to regulate "external matters," such as "a tort claim against the company based on a personal injury … or a contract claim based on a commercial contract with the corporation." This internal/external framework was implicitly affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court in ATP Tour, where the court held that fee-shifting bylaws adopted by a non-stock corporation formed under Delaware law were facially valid under both DGCL Sections 109(b) & 102(b)(1) because they allocate "risk among parties in intra-corporate litigation." Finally, in 2015, Delaware codified, at DGCL Section 115, Boilermakers' definition of "internal corporate claims," and in the same provision limited Delaware corporations' authority to adopt charter and bylaw provisions preventing stockholders from pursuing such claims in Delaware's courts.
When Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg, was decided by the Court of Chancery in December 2018, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster relied on these principles to hold that FFPs regulating the forum for 1933 Act claims were facially invalid because such claims were "external" to the corporation, like tort or contract claims. In the vice chancellor's view, charter provisions regulating external claims were "invalid and ineffective" because Delaware's General Assembly implicitly narrowed Section 102(b)(1) by codifying the definition of "internal corporate claims" in Section 115.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3'That's Disappointing': Only 11% of MDL Appointments Went to Attorneys of Color in 2023
- 4What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 5'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250