Editor’s note: This article is part two of a series.
In part I of this article, we discussed how in Quantum Technology Partners IV L.P. v. Ploom, C.A. No. 9054-ML (Del. Ch. May 14, 2014) (Master’s Final Report), Master in Chancery Abigail M. LeGrow faced the “unwelcome task” of finding an appropriate middle ground between the extreme positions taken by the parties in a Section 220 action concerning what terms should be included in a confidentiality order in connection with the inspection of corporate books and records where inspection was sought in part to assist the stockholder in marketing its shares. Specifically, we discussed how LeGrow dealt with the issues of defining competitor, confidential information and highly confidential information for purposes of the confidentiality order and the restrictions LeGrow recommended on the use of such information. LeGrow then turned to other matters that needed to be addressed in the order, including restrictions on which financial advisers could receive confidential information, who had the burden to justify confidentiality designations, the timeframe for production of information, liability for unauthorized disclosures, and whether the use of the information or the designations themselves were subject to any sunset provision.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
