7th Circuit Rejects Company Bylaw Requiring That All Derivative Suits Be Brought in Delaware Chancery Court

Ballard Spahr LLP
Contact

Ballard Spahr LLP

A U.S. Appeals Court has struck down a company's bylaw requiring that all shareholder derivative suits be filed in Delaware’s Chancery Court, finding the provision effectively eliminated claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) for which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Seafarers Pension Plan v. Bradway, Case No. 20-2244 (7th Cir. Jan. 7, 2022).

Delaware Courts previously upheld bylaws requiring that stockholder litigation be brought in the state of incorporation or the courts of the state where the company has a significant interest (such as a principal place of business). Those decisions left open whether a bylaw could require that a federal law claim be brought in a state court.

Filed by a Boeing stockholder, the complaint alleged that proxy disclosures relating to two 737 Max jetliner crashes violated § 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 of the Exchange Act, which prohibit false or misleading statements in public company proxy statements. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding Boeing’s bylaws established the Chancery Court as the exclusive jurisdiction for derivative suits.

In reversing, the Seventh Circuit held that while Delaware General Corporation Law § 115 “gives corporations considerable leeway in writing bylaws,” it “does not empower corporations to use such techniques to opt out of the Exchange Act.” The court found that in enacting § 115, Delaware’s General Assembly “cautioned” that the measure “was not intended to authorize a provision that purports to foreclose suit in a federal court based on federal jurisdiction, nor is Section 115 intended to limit or expand the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery or the Superior Court.” The court stated that it understood the Delaware statute as authorizing bylaws requiring that federal law derivative claims be brought in a particular federal district court, but did not discuss whether such a bylaw would be valid.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ballard Spahr LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ballard Spahr LLP
Contact
more
less

Ballard Spahr LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.