Board Matters

The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder suit claiming that directors of B. Riley Financial breached their fiduciary duties by failing to catch problems with an investment that later went bad. The suit was framed as a Caremark claim, the label Delaware uses for lawsuits arguing that a board failed to conduct oversight. The Court reaffirmed why those claims are so hard to win: a board’s oversight duty is aimed at the company’s own internal compliance and risk systems, not at policing misconduct by outside parties the company does business with, even where the company has significant money on the line. A failed investment, on its own, is not evidence of bad faith, and stockholders cannot repackage hindsight criticism of a bad bet as a breach of duty. Delaware courts scrutinize process, meaning they evaluate whether the board informed itself and had systems in place, rather than whether that process led to a good outcome.

When allegations of corporate misconduct surface, one of the first questions companies may face is who should oversee the response. In some circumstances, an investigation led by management or in-house counsel may be appropriate. But allegations involving senior executives or directors, mission-critical compliance risks, or questions about management’s independence may require the board — often through an independent committee — to take a more active role.

In a new article for Reuters Practical Law, Sidley partner Holly J. Gregory examines when a board-driven investigation may be warranted and how boards can structure those investigations to withstand scrutiny from regulators, prosecutors, shareholders, and courts.

The article also considers recent Delaware decisions addressing directors’ responses to compliance red flags and highlights practical considerations for board-led investigations, including committee independence, investigative scope, preservation, privilege, documentation, whistleblower protections, self-disclosure, reporting, and remediation.

A Delaware Court of Chancery decision in Siegel v. Morse reaffirmed that courts will not entertain challenges to advance notice bylaws absent an actual, existing dispute. Even after the Delaware Supreme Court’s Kellner decision raised the bar for facial validity claims, the plaintiff attempted to reframe his challenge as an “as-applied” one, but the court found no ripe controversy since no stockholder had expressed an intent to nominate directors. The decision signals that bylaw litigation must be grounded in a real, concrete controversy and that generic concerns about defensive board behavior are insufficient without an active proxy contest or nomination dispute.

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently provided a powerful reminder of the Court’s equitable purpose, and how it will not countenance bad faith or duplicity. In Ghatty v. Mudili et al., three board members of a five-member board voted at a special board meeting to remove the remaining two directors from their officer positions, and later sued under 8 Del. C. § 225 to seek confirmation that the two directors had been validly removed from their officer roles. The Defendants challenged their removal on a number of grounds. The Court of Chancery considered one argument dispositive: that the meeting notice was inherently deficient because the meeting agenda omitted the removal action effectuated at the meeting, and indeed misleadingly suggested that one Defendant’s officer role would be expanded. The Court condemned the notice as “duplicity,” voided the vote, and held that the Defendants remained officers of the Company.

The Meeting Notice

The stated purpose of the meeting was to discuss how to bring “better governance and transparency” to the Company, and the agenda included the following items:

• Review of requests for financial statements, bank records, and supporting documentation;
• Discussion of alleged unauthorized transactions or approvals;
• Proposal for new signatory protocols and centralized finance email;
• Proposed recognition and role expansion for one of the Defendants; and
• Any additional matters raised by board members or shareholders in good faith.

Following the notice, there were additional communications amongst the directors detailing the items for discussion at the meeting. Notably, the removal of the Defendants as officers was never mentioned. In fact, although one Plaintiff director raised certain “potential areas of concern,” he specifically said that the meeting notice was not “an accusation of wrongdoing against any individual,” but was instead “a formal invitation to clarify and remedy any potential governance shortfalls,” and he invited the directors to “submit any ‘contrary evidence’ and ‘additional agenda items’ ahead of the meeting.” He also mentioned one Defendant’s “notable contributions,” and proposed that he be appointed Chief Revenue Officer and given enhanced compensation.

Before the board meeting, however, there was a “falling out” between that director and the Defendants. The latter then said that they would be unable to attend the meeting due to their “tight schedules.” The meeting went forward as planned, with only the three Plaintiff directors in attendance. Later resolutions state that, at the meeting, the three Plaintiff directors removed the Defendants as officers of the Company.

The Court found that the meeting notice technically complied with the Company’s bylaws, but nevertheless voided the vote taken at the meeting because the notice was not equitable. Instead, the Court considered it a “bait and switch that concealed the Plaintiffs’ intention to remove [the Defendants] as officers.” In holding that the Defendants remained officers of the Company, the Court stressed that “[e]quity will not abide such duplicity toward fellow directors.” The Court also rejected the argument that notice was not required where the targeted directors lacked the power to block the action, stressing that “[f]air notice fosters a genuine deliberative process – a purpose that was subverted here.”

Lessons Learned

Ghatty offers some important lessons about the value of good governance when taking board action:

• Directors are entitled to a “fair and non-misleading notice of the agenda for a special meeting,” even if the notice technically complies with the bylaws. When drafting agendas, consider whether the agenda adequately describes the discussion points and decision items for the meeting.
• Holding Regular Meetings. This meeting was the Company’s first in-person board meeting in three years. This fact was relevant to the determination of whether the meeting was a “regular” or “special” meeting. That distinction can be significant, particularly in instances where the company’s bylaws have different notice requirements for regular versus special board meetings.
• Clear Bylaws. The Court began its analysis by turning to the Company’s bylaws. In support of their argument that the meeting notice was deficient, the Defendants cited to a stockholder meeting provision in the bylaws that required a specific statement of the meeting’s purpose. Because the bylaws lacked an analog requirement for board meetings, the Court found that the notice was technically sufficient, and had to rely instead on its equitable power to reach its result. Consider whether there are unintentional gaps or inconsistencies in your company’s bylaws that can be clarified or corrected to provide more certainty and consistency across governance items. Also remember that bylaws set the rules for the game, but, as seen in Ghatty, can’t protect against bad faith.
• Records and Meeting Minutes. The Court referenced the fact that there were no contemporaneous minutes or evidence of the meeting, only a resolution dated a couple of weeks later stating that, at the meeting, “appropriate resolutions were adopted, changing certain officer and signatory roles within the Company.” Although the Court did not rely on this fact in its holding, it is a helpful reminder of the importance of appropriately and timely documenting actions taken at a meeting.

On March 25, 2025, Delaware Governor Matt Meyer signed significant amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law that provide greater predictability and clarity for conflicted transactions. The amendments create statutory safe harbors under Section 144 that preclude equitable relief and damage claims when transactions involving controlling stockholders or control groups are approved through either a properly functioning special committee of at least two disinterested directors or an informed, uncoerced vote of disinterested stockholders (with both mechanisms required only for controller go-private transactions). The amendments also define key terms including “controlling stockholder” (with a one-third voting control floor), “control group,” and “disinterested director,” extend duty-of-care exculpation to controlling stockholders, and narrow stockholder books-and-records inspection rights under Section 220 to core materials while adding heightened requirements for accessing additional records. The amendments apply to acts and transactions regardless of when they occurred, but do not apply to legal proceedings or demands commenced on or before February 17, 2025.

Delaware has long been the default jurisdiction of incorporation of high-growth emerging companies due to its advanced, and evolving, body of corporate law, a specialized Court of Chancery, and decades of corporate law cases and precedents. But that default assumption has now come into question.

In recent years, Delaware’s courts have issued a series of decisions that have left some founders of high-growth companies unsettled. See, for instance, the recent Tesla cases, following which Elon Musk publicly blasted Delaware and both Tesla and SpaceX reincorporated in Texas. Musk is not alone in this trend toward “DExit” – TripAdvisor, Dropbox, AMC Networks, and Roblox are among those reincorporating in Nevada, and Dillard’s joined Tesla and SpaceX by reincorporating in Texas. Even Meta publicly announced that it was exploring a move out of Delaware in 2025.

In response, Delaware’s legislature adopted major reforms in 2024 and early 2025 (SB 313 and SB 21) codifying safe harbors for conflicted transactions, narrowing books-and-records access, and strengthening management’s shield against litigation.

More and more founders and GCs of later-stage companies are now wondering if Delaware should still be the default.

So, should you care and, if so, where are companies moving?

“Y’all Street” as an Alternative?

In recent years, Texas lawmakers have aggressively reformed state law to attract corporations. The state’s pitch? A pro-business legal climate, big-market economy, and fewer stockholder hassles. In 2024, Texas launched a new statewide Business Court system modeled on Delaware’s Chancery Court, with specialized judges to handle complex corporate cases. This was quickly followed in May 2025 with sweeping legislated changes (SB 29) to the Texas Business Organizations Code, in a package branded as “Texas: Open for Business." Key provisions include:

Codification of the Business Judgment Rule:

Texas now explicitly codifies the business judgment rule and the high bar to rebut it, giving directors stronger protection when their decisions are challenged.

Limits on Derivative Lawsuits:

Allowing corporations to set a minimum ownership threshold (up to 3%) for stockholder-plaintiffs to bring a derivative suit. This threshold is higher than most states and drastically curbs the ability of small stockholders to sue on behalf of the corporation.

Records and Litigation Procedure:

Limiting what constitutes corporate “books and records” available for stockholder inspection. For instance, emails and electronic communications are excluded. It also allows companies to include provisions in their charters or bylaws waiving the right to jury trials in corporate disputes, meaning cases would be heard solely by judges (as they are in Delaware’s Chancery Court).

In addition to the changes effected by SB 29, Texas later enacted several additional measures to allow certain Texas-listed public companies to adopt higher thresholds for stockholder proposals and to authorize the board of directors to delegate more discretion to the corporation’s executives.

Pros and Cons of the Y’all Street

The Texas proposals seem very attractive, especially to issuers and their insiders, but, in practice, their effectiveness is hard to measure. The new courts lack Delaware’s decades of precedent, making Texas less predictable for companies. So, certainty with respect to a few specific matters is offset by uncertainty with respect to treatment of a myriad of others. Additionally, incorporating in Texas might expose a corporation to Texas venue for certain lawsuits.

Texas has certainly had some luck in attracting private and public companies as of late, and we are working with a number of companies exploring Texas as a potential alternative to Delaware.

The “Silver Sanctuary”?

Like Texas, Nevada’s appeal lies in providing certainty to companies and their insiders with respect to certain specific common transactions. It automatically offers directors and officers strong protections. Key features of Nevada’s corporate environment include:

Robust Liability Shields

Nevada law automatically exculpates directors and officers from personal liability for breaches of fiduciary duty (except in cases of intentional misconduct, fraud, or knowing law violations). In Delaware, by contrast, corporations must opt in to exculpation (and even then, it covers only duty of care, not loyalty, and only recently were officers allowed similar protection). Nevada’s default rule thus gives executives peace of mind that honest mistakes won’t easily lead to personal liability. Likewise, Nevada statutes make it easier to indemnify and protect managers, which can reduce D&O insurance costs.

Consideration of Other Interests

Nevada explicitly permits boards to consider long-term corporate interests and the impacts on employees, customers, the community, etc., when making decisions. Directors are not strictly bound to maximize immediate stockholder value at all costs. This allows directors to justify decisions that favor sustainable growth or other constituencies, without breaching their duty to stockholders. This contrasts with states like Texas or Delaware, where directors must generally act in the best interests of the corporation and its stockholders, with true stakeholder balancing available only if the corporation opts into a Public Benefit Corporation framework.

No Franchise Tax

From a financial perspective, Nevada imposes no corporate franchise tax and so may prove cheaper to operate in, especially for early-stage companies.

Pros and Cons of the Silver Sanctuary

Nevada offers what Nevada usually offers: more freedom to operate at the expense of less predictability. Nevada’s business courts were established in 2001, but those courts have not published nearly as many written opinions, or as routinely, as Delaware’s Court of Chancery. The law, while more insider-friendly, is also less modernized in other areas.

So, in the end, what should you do?

The answer is not clear-cut. For now, there is no mass flight out of Delaware, but certainly lots of discussions are taking place. No clear winner has emerged for the alternatives, but it does appear that more public companies are leaning towards Texas while more private companies are considering Nevada. But the vast majority of new incorporations are still taking place in Delaware.

It all comes down to perception, expectation, and, perhaps in the future, actual experience. To help your thinking, a chart summarizing some, but certainly not all, of the key features of the three regimes may be found here:

Whether a company is gearing up for an acquisition, a growth equity financing, or an IPO, a due diligence review will be an inevitable part of that transaction, and that review will test not only the current business but also the integrity of a company’s historical records. Readiness for that review is critical, as once a diligence process begins, gaps in corporate approvals, equity records, contract management, intellectual property ownership, and regulatory compliance can quickly become leverage for purchase price adjustments, closing conditions, and/or special indemnities. At best, diligence gaps can consume management attention at a time when a company has little bandwidth to spare. At worst, they can detract from a company’s credibility and can have a meaningful impact on deal speed and certainty. Most issues are fixable, but the available solutions often narrow after a deal is already on the table. This article provides an overview of actionable steps leadership at mid- to late-stage private companies can take to make transaction readiness an ongoing discipline rather than a pre-signing scramble.

Set Up and Maintain a Virtual Data Room

Rather than waiting until a letter of intent is signed, companies should stand up and maintain a virtual data room (VDR) early, using records they already keep locally, and treat it as a living repository of critical corporate documents. Management teams that prepare to address anticipated diligence focus areas and maintain organized virtual records early are better positioned when a process launches than teams that start flat-footed. Companies can get a head start by asking outside counsel for a standard due diligence request list, which serves as an organizational and gap-identification tool, as well as an organized table of contents for their VDR. This ensures that documents are comprehensive and indexed by categories prospective investors and acquirers will expect.

The VDR should contain current, fully executed, and dated documents together with all amendments, statements of work, and side letters. Superseded and terminated agreements should be archived, not deleted or mixed with operative versions. One small but time-saving step in setting up a VDR is using a consistent and intuitive naming convention as documents are uploaded, which will help not only management but also third-party reviewers quickly navigate the VDR’s contents. Once a diligence process begins, access should be staged and subject to tiered permissions, with additional controls for competitively sensitive information, compensation data, and litigation files; privileged materials should be withheld or handled through a process designed to preserve privilege. Particularly when a potential buyer is a competitor, or when the underlying material is subject to confidentiality restrictions that do not permit sharing with a potential acquirer or investor, counsel should advise prior to upload and contemplate redactions, clean-team arrangements, and restrictions on downloading or printing. When in doubt, leave it out; it is easier to pause early and evaluate permissions and other protections than to pull back a document after it has been shared.

A word of caution: prospective investors now run AI review tools that can scan an entire data room in minutes, and while that process can generate false positives, it can also magnify every internal inconsistency across the VDR, including in the cap table, contracts, and other materials. As a best practice, keeping the VDR updated quarterly helps identify issues early and positions the company and management to earn credibility from the moment that transaction diligence begins.

Maintain a Corporate Record Book and Organizational Documents

M&A buyers and growth equity investors will expect clean and current corporate governance records. This means prospective investors will review: current versions of the certificate of incorporation (including all amendments) and bylaws; board and stockholder minutes; and fully executed, dated written consents. An improperly compiled consent with a missing signature page or date can cost the company meaningful time and resources to track down or, worse, require corrective action to cure. Every material corporate action should tie out to a corresponding board and/or stockholder approval, including equity issuances, option grants, director and officer elections, and subsidiary formations.

Companies should also at least annually confirm good standing in their state of incorporation and in every jurisdiction in which they are qualified to do business. Outside counsel can obtain verbal good standing confirmations from third-party service providers, often for a nominal or no cost to the company. Good standing lapses can trigger fees, taxes, and penalties and, in many states, can bar the company from bringing suit in local courts until the lapse is cured, although a lapse does not typically invalidate contracts executed while the company was not in good standing. For an additional layer of caution, companies can consider ordering lien and litigation searches from third-party service providers in the same set of jurisdictions.

Ensure Vigilant Capitalization Table Hygiene

The company should expect buyers or investors to request a current copy of the capitalization table and, in the case of an equity financing, a pro forma cap table reflecting the completed round. Most cap table hygiene issues exist well before a contemplated transaction and surface in the diligence process. Common hiccups include unsigned option grants, undocumented stock issuances, unrecorded convertible note draws, and inconsistencies between vesting schedules and employment terms. Cap table accuracy is key: a company’s representations about its capitalization are often treated as fundamental representations, giving buyers or investors the ability to claim breach even for minor discrepancies. Moreover, a messy cap table can be perceived as poor ownership discipline by the company or its management.

With assistance from outside counsel, the company should reconcile the cap table against the stock ledger and equity grant documentation, ensuring that every stock and option issuance is supported by board resolutions, grant agreements, evidence of payment of the exercise or purchase price, and, if applicable, an approved, unexpired equity incentive plan. Each option grant should also be supported by a current 409A valuation that supports the board’s determination of the fair market value of the underlying shares.

Importantly, companies should develop a clear understanding of how antidilution provisions operate and how change-of-control acceleration clauses (single-trigger and double-trigger) may affect the equity/distribution waterfall in a transaction. Modeling these scenarios in advance allows management to communicate the deal economics clearly to all stockholders and avoids last-minute surprises that can derail negotiations.

Understand Key Provisions in Material Contracts

Counsel for buyers and investors will expect the opportunity to review each contract that is material to the business. These typically include: contracts with key customers and suppliers above certain revenue or expense thresholds; license agreements; leases; employment and severance agreements with key personnel; and other contracts that are important to the business. These contracts often contain change-of-control consent triggers, rights of first refusal, out-licensing restrictions, most favored nation provisions, exclusivity, non-solicit, non-compete, and other restrictive covenants. In certain circumstances, a counterparty may have a notice, consent, or termination right in connection with a transaction. Accordingly, with the help of outside counsel, a company should be generally aware of which key agreements contain those provisions and should have a plan for obtaining consents or providing timely notice in advance of entering into a transaction process. Seeking consent late in the process can give leverage to the counterparty, which can increase overall costs and decrease deal certainty.

Confirm Intellectual Property Ownership and Assignment of IP

Depending on the company’s core business, clean IP title is often a significant driver of the diligence process. One consideration that comes up time and again is whether every founder, employee, and contractor who contributed to the company’s IP portfolio has executed an invention assignment agreement that assigns all intellectual property rights to the company. It isn’t uncommon for advisors and early contributors in early-stage companies, often compensated in equity, to miss the assignment paperwork altogether, or to execute, but not date, the assignment. Any gaps in assignment should be addressed ahead of the buyer or investor diligence process, which can be done with the help of outside IP counsel. Companies should also routinely conduct an audit of open-source software usage to confirm compliance with applicable license terms.

Maintain Compliance with Industry-Specific Regulatory Requirements

Companies operating in regulated industries, such as healthcare, financial services, energy, and government contracting, should confirm that all material licenses, permits, and registrations are current and in good standing. Identifying regulatory approvals or notices that would be required in connection with a change-of-control or assignment of a license can avoid an additional layer of investor diligence caused when gaps are identified later in the deal negotiation process. Regulatory non-compliance discovered during diligence can significantly delay closing or reduce deal certainty.

Ordinary Delaware law tells a board selling control to get the best price reasonably available; however, by statute, directors of a public benefit corporation must balance stockholders’ financial interests against the interests of other people affected by the business and the company’s stated public mission. In Drakes Landing Associates, L.P. v. Tilden Park Capital Management, L.P., the court held that the Revlon stockholder value maximization standard of conduct does not apply to these directors, though courts may still review their decision-making under an enhanced scrutiny standard. The case was dismissed on a separate ground: the directors were protected by a statutory safe harbor, given that their decision was found to be informed, disinterested, and not one that no sensible person would approve. Here, an independent special committee with its own lawyers and a banker ran a market check before approving emergency financing that heavily diluted existing holders.

Dodiya v. Franklin tested the limits of the safe harbors added in 2025 to Section 144 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Those amendments can preclude equitable relief and eliminate damages claims in certain conflicted transactions that may involve insiders or a controlling stockholder by having it approved either by disinterested directors acting in good faith and without gross negligence, or by an informed vote of disinterested stockholders. In Dodiya v. Franklin, a company’s CEO leaked confidential valuation and process information to his father’s investment firm, which bought stock cheaply and then took the company private. The board continued to give the CEO access to deal materials and allowed him to attend a board meeting about the deal even after he recused himself, and despite the board’s knowledge of the leak.  Despite this, the proxy statement stated he had not participated in the sale process after his recusal. In August 2026, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the board acted with “reckless indifference” and that it was reasonably conceivable that the merger proxy statement contained a material misstatement, making both safe harbors unavailable. The safe harbor protection is real, but its availability depends on the board’s process and the accuracy of its disclosures.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 29, a sweeping overhaul of the Texas Business Organizations Code aimed at making Texas the “corporate law capital of America.” Key changes include codifying the business judgment rule for publicly traded corporations, creating a statutory framework for controlling shareholder transactions with special committee pre-approval procedures, allowing entities to waive jury trials in governing documents, narrowing books and records demands to exclude emails and text messages, imposing up to 3% ownership thresholds for derivative suits, eliminating mootness fees for disclosure-only supplements, and permitting alternative entities to fully eliminate fiduciary duties in their governing agreements.

Under Texas law, informal fiduciary relationships (which can theoretically arise from any personal or business relationship of special trust and confidence) are frequently claimed in litigation but almost never succeed. Two recent decisions illustrate the doctrine’s narrowing scope: in Pitts v. Rivas, the Texas Supreme Court rejected an informal fiduciary claim despite a decade-long personal friendship between an accountant and client, with a notable concurrence from Justice Huddle (joined by three justices) formally calling for the doctrine to be abandoned altogether. The Texas Business Court reached a similar conclusion in Tall v. Vanderhoef, dismissing an LLC minority member’s informal fiduciary claim because no special relationship of trust existed prior to and apart from the parties’ governing agreements. While the doctrine technically remains good law in Texas, courts continue to apply it with significant skepticism and practitioners should treat informal fiduciary claims as a high-risk, rarely successful avenue in business disputes

By the time a venture-backed company reaches its mid to late stages, its board is usually built out of overlapping interests. Directors are affiliated with the funds that led earlier rounds, a founder may hold a large voting block, and executives and investors alike see a steady stream of opportunities, some of which look a lot like the company’s own roadmap. Generally, Delaware corporate law treats these relationships not as misconduct but as a process question. Most recently, Delaware corporate law received meaningful codified updates to its conflicted transaction rules and the key in evaluating such transactions remains to ensure that process follows the most recent developments in the law.

Loyalty Sets the Baseline

Directors and officers of a Delaware corporation owe fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to the corporation. The duty of loyalty bars a fiduciary from using a position of trust to advance personal interests at the corporation’s expense, and it is the source of both bodies of law discussed here. A conflict of interest does not by itself make a transaction wrongful; what it changes is the standard of judicial review if the transaction is later challenged. A conflicted transaction that has not been properly cleansed risks review for entire fairness, the most demanding standard under Delaware law, while a transaction that satisfies the statutory safe harbors described below is insulated from fiduciary duty damages and equitable relief.

Conflicted Transactions Under Section 144

DGCL Section 144 gives boards a set of alternative cleansing paths. An act or transaction involving a conflicted director or officer qualifies for the safe harbor if any one of the following is true: the material facts of the interest and the transaction are disclosed or known to the board or a committee, and a majority of the disinterested directors approve it in good faith and without gross negligence; the transaction is approved or ratified by an informed, uncoerced, affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast by the disinterested stockholders; or the transaction is fair to the corporation and its stockholders. However, if a majority of the board is conflicted, the director-approval route must run through a committee of at least two disinterested directors.

Controlling stockholder transactions have their own rules, and the statute defines who is a controller: a person who owns or controls a majority of the voting power, has the right to cause the election of a majority of the board, or holds at least one third of the voting power together with the power to exercise managerial authority over the corporation’s business and affairs. On a maturing cap table, that can describe a founder with high-vote stock or, in some circumstances, a lead investor, and stockholders acting together under an agreement or understanding can constitute a control group. A controlling stockholder transaction (other than a going private transaction) qualifies for the safe harbor if it is approved or recommended by a committee of at least two disinterested directors with express authority to negotiate and to reject the transaction, or if it is conditioned on and receives an informed, uncoerced majority-of-the-minority vote. Only a going private transaction requires both protections, a deliberate departure from prior case law, under which both were generally required for a controller transaction to earn business judgment review.

The statute also defines disinterestedness. A disinterested director is one who is not a party to the transaction and has no material interest in it or material relationship with a person who does, with materiality keyed to whether the director’s objectivity would reasonably be expected to be impaired. Directors of exchange-listed companies also receive a heightened presumption of disinterestedness if the board has determined they are independent under exchange rules, a provision that becomes relevant after an IPO.

The Corporate Opportunity Doctrine

The corporate opportunity doctrine answers a different loyalty question: when a business opportunity belongs to the corporation rather than to the fiduciary who learned of it. A director or officer of a Delaware corporation may not take an opportunity for personal benefit if the corporation is financially able to undertake it, the opportunity falls within the corporation’s line of business and would be of practical advantage to it, the corporation has an interest or reasonable expectancy in it, and taking it would place the fiduciary’s self-interest in conflict with the fiduciary’s duties. The Delaware Supreme Court has emphasized that the factors are weighed together and that no single factor is dispositive.

In the venture ecosystem, fund-affiliated directors see deal flow across an entire portfolio, and founders and executives routinely encounter ideas adjacent to the corporation’s business. A fiduciary who takes an opportunity that a court later decides belonged to the corporation faces disgorgement of the opportunity or its proceeds. However, a fiduciary who presents the opportunity to the board and obtains a rejection from disinterested directors gains the benefit of a safe harbor, mitigating the risk of an after-the-fact judicial determination that the opportunity was usurped. Presentation is not legally required, but it creates a clean contemporaneous record, and the rejection should be clearly documented in the minutes.

Advance Waivers Under Section 122(17)

Delaware also permits much of this to be resolved in advance. Section 122(17) of the DGCL authorizes a corporation to renounce, in its certificate of incorporation or by action of its board, any interest or expectancy in specified business opportunities or specified classes or categories of business opportunities, whether presented to the corporation or to one or more of its officers, directors, or stockholders. Waivers of this kind are common in venture capital investments, where a firm and its designees may hold positions and board seats across a sector, and it is recommended to build them into the certificate of incorporation at the time of investment (which is consistent with the NVCA model certificate of incorporation). Note that such a waiver addresses only the corporate opportunity doctrine, not confidentiality. Accordingly, funds holding positions in competing companies should maintain information screens and avoid seating the same designee on the boards of competitors.

That said, advance waivers may not be an absolute shield to all issues arising out of potential corporate opportunities. Although details are scant as of the time of writing, and we expect to publish more detailed analysis once information becomes available, in August of 2026 the U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating certain venture capital firms with partners serving on boards of competing companies, potentially raising antitrust concerns, separate from the corporate law concepts of corporate opportunity.

DO’S & DON’TS:

Board Process for Conflicted Transactions

DO: Surface conflicts early and choose the cleansing path before approval. Disclose all material facts about the fiduciary’s interest and involvement, obtain approval from a majority of the disinterested directors acting in good faith and without gross negligence, and use a committee of at least two board-determined disinterested directors whenever a majority of the board is conflicted.

DON’T: Treat a conflicted deal as either automatically prohibited or automatically safe because the terms feel like market. Without disinterested director approval, a qualifying disinterested stockholder vote, or provable fairness, the transaction and the fiduciaries remain exposed.

Controlling Stockholders and Investor Directors

DO: Test whether a founder, investor, or group acting together is a controlling stockholder or control group under Section 144(e) before structuring any related party transaction. For controller transactions, use a fully empowered committee of at least two disinterested directors or a conditioned majority-of-the-minority vote, and use both for a going private transaction.

DON’T: Assume control requires majority ownership; one third of the voting power plus managerial authority can suffice. And do not rely on a stockholder vote to cleanse a controller transaction unless the deal was conditioned on disinterested stockholder approval by its terms when submitted for the vote.

Corporate Opportunities

DO: Adopt a simple protocol: fiduciaries promptly disclose opportunities arguably within the corporation’s line of business, the board or its disinterested members decide whether the corporation will pursue them, and any rejection is documented in the minutes before the fiduciary proceeds.

DON’T: Let a director or officer pursue such an opportunity quietly, or with the corporation’s resources, personnel, or information. Informal assurances from management are not a substitute for board-level disclosure and a documented rejection.

Waivers and Information Hygiene

DO: Consider a Section 122(17) waiver in the certificate of incorporation tailored to fund-affiliated directors and stockholders, revisit its scope at each financing, and pair it with confidentiality screens where investors hold competing positions.

DON’T: Seat the same designee on the boards of competing portfolio companies or treat a waiver as permission to share the corporation’s confidential information.