U . s . Technologies Corp. v. Treppel, No. 127, 2014 (Del. 12 ,. 23, 2014)

U . s . Technologies Corp. v. Treppel, No. 127, 2014 (Del. 12 ,. 23, 2014)

U . s . Technologies Corp. v. Treppel, No. 127, 2014 (Del. 12 ,. 23, 2014)

Within this en banc opinion, the Delaware Top Court held the Court of Chancery has got the discretionary authority under Section 220(c) from the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”) to stop the inspecting stockholder’s utilization of information caused by such inspection in almost any court case apart from legal actions inside a Delaware forum.

In August 2012, Lawrence Treppel (“Treppel”), a stockholder of U . s . Technologies Corp., a Delaware corporation (“United Technologies”), sent U . s . Technologies a litigation demand letter regarding the an analysis through the U.S. Department of Justice into violations of federal law by U . s . Technologies. In December 2012, U . s . Technologies’ board rejected Treppel’s demand.

In March 2013, Treppel designed a books and records inspection demand under Section 220 from the DGCL to judge U . s . Technologies’ board’s decision to reject his litigation demand. U . s . Technologies decided to allow Treppel to examine the majority of his requested documents susceptible to his execution of the confidentiality agreement that incorporated essential that any law suit arising from, associated with, involving, or regarding the Treppel’s inspection be introduced inside a Delaware court. Following the parties were not able arrive at agreement around the relation to inspection, Treppel filed a piece 220 action in the courtroom of Chancery. U . s . Technologies contended, amongst other things, that Treppel’s utilization of information acquired in the inspection ought to be restricted to actions inside a Delaware court.

In the publish-trial bench opinion, a legal court of Chancery held it lacked the statutory authority to impose a unique forum use limitation under Section 220(c), and held that Treppel were built with a proper purpose and it was titled to inspection. U . s . Technologies appealed.

The Delaware Top Court reversed, holding the Court of Chancery erred in holding it lacked the legal right to impose the suggested limitation. The Final Court centered on the plain language of Section 220(c) from the DGCL, which supplies that the court may, “in its discretion, prescribe any limitations or conditions with regards to the inspection.” The Final Court also noted that “the capability to limit using information collected from a check mark-not only the scope from the inspection itself-has lengthy been acknowledged as inside the Court of Chancery’s discretion.”

The Final Court remanded the problem towards the Court of Chancery to find out, in the discretion, whether or not to impose the exclusive forum limitation. The Final Court noted that, in thinking about how you can exercise its discretion within this situation, a legal court of Chancery was titled to provide weight to, among additional factors, (1) the truth that Treppel seeks to file for claims arising from the same corporate conduct which was already the topic of derivative litigation in the courtroom of Chancery and also the Top Court, (2) U . s . Technologies’ legitimate curiosity about getting consistent rulings on related problems with Delaware law, and getting individuals rulings produced by a Delaware court, (3) U . s . Technologies’ adoption of the forum selection bylaw creating Delaware because the proper forum for disputes, (4) an investment that U . s . Technologies already produced in protecting the last derivative litigation and also the current Section 220 action, (5) Treppel’s lack of ability to articulate any legitimate reason he must file suit inside a forum apart from Delaware, and (6) the significance of maintaining Section 220 actions as streamlined, summary proceedings. The Final Court continued to point out that, even without the pre-existing litigation, a court may determine the possible complications that the forum use restriction might inject right into a Section 220 proceeding may not be justified by substantial interests from the respondent corporation.

The entire opinion can be obtained here.



Related Posts
Leave a reply