In August 2022, the Delaware General Assembly amended the Delaware General Corporation Law to allow corporations to adopt charter provisions exculpating certain officers from personal liability for monetary damages for breaches of the duty of care. Since that time, observers have considered to what extent Delaware public company boards would propose officer exculpation amendments (“OEAs”)

For decades, corporate merger and acquisition deals have been plagued by meritless claims asserting, typically, that the companies and their officers and directors have provided insufficient disclosures. Courts have sought to crack down on these lawsuits, but—as in the game of whack-a-mole—the plaintiffs bringing these lawsuits have adjusted their tactics to avoid the judicially imposed

On January 29, 2024, in Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Ainslie, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a Chancery Court holding that a forfeiture-for-competition provision in a limited partnership agreement was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade. Applying the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (“DRULPA”), the Supreme Court held that (i) the forfeiture-for-competition provision

Delaware courts have held that officer exculpation amendments do not require a separate class vote. For corporations with multiple classes of stock, this provides certainty to those that have already adopted such amendments and a clear path for corporations that plan to propose them. The vast majority of public company proposals to adopt officer exculpation

Generative AI (i.e., AI creating original content using machine learning and neural networks) has captivated people everywhere, producing a range of responses from doomsday warnings of machines rendering humans extinct to rosy dreams where machines possess magical properties. In corporate boardrooms, however, a more sober conversation is occurring. It seeks a practical understanding of

Historically, directors have been protected from personal liability in connection with risk management by the high standard set in the seminal 1996 Caremark case. In recent years, however, courts have held that certain plaintiffs have pled facts sufficient to avoid dismissal of suits seeking to hold directors liable for failing to discharge their oversight duties.