2015 Changes to Delaware Law Go into Effect

Jul 30, 2015

Reading Time : 6 min

Fee-Shifting Provisions – Sections 102 and 109

“Fee-shifting” provisions in a corporation’s certificate of incorporation or bylaws generally provide that, in litigation brought by stockholders against the corporation or its directors or officers, including actions for breach of fiduciary duty and derivative suits, the plaintiff stockholder is required to pay the legal fees of the defendant corporation, officer or stockholder if the lawsuit is unsuccessful.

The revisions to Sections 102 (relating to the certificate of incorporation) and 109 (relating to the bylaws) will prohibit the certificate of incorporation and bylaws from imposing any liability on a stockholder for the attorneys’ fees or expenses of the corporation or any other party in connection with “internal corporate claims.”3

The new Section 115 defines “internal corporate claims” as “claims, including claims in the right of the corporation, (i) that are based upon a violation of a duty by a current or former director or officer or stockholder in such capacity, or (ii) as to which [the DGCL] confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Chancery.”4  Essentially, “internal corporate claims” are any claims arising under the DGCL.5

These amendments come in response to a recent debate over fee-shifting provisions as a result of the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund,6 which upheld the validity of a bylaw provision adopted by a nonstock membership corporation shifting attorneys’ fees and expenses to unsuccessful plaintiffs in intra-corporate litigation. Notably, the amendments to Sections 102 and 109 do not affect nonstock corporations (Section 114 of the DGCL was amended to make this explicitly clear) —they simply make clear that the ATP Tour decision is not applicable to stock corporations.7

It is also important to note that the amendments to Sections 102 and 109 do not prohibit the inclusion of fee-shifting provisions in a stockholders’ agreement or other writing signed by the stockholder against whom the provision is to be enforced (e.g., stock purchase agreements).8

Forum Selection Provision – Section 115

The new Section 115 expressly authorizes Delaware corporations to include exclusive forum provisions for internal corporate claims in their respective certificates of incorporation or bylaws and also prohibits provisions that exclude Delaware as a forum for internal corporate claims in such organizational documents.9

As a result, Section 115 permits the selection of Delaware as the exclusive forum while disallowing the selection of another state as the exclusive forum for internal corporate claims, though it remains to be seen whether other states may be selected as acceptable forums in addition to Delaware.10

This new Section 115 comes in response to the growing popularity of forum selection provisions, and effectively overrules the Court of Chancery’s decision in City of Providence v. First Citizens BancShares, Inc,.11 which upheld a forum selection provision designating North Carolina as the exclusive forum for intra-corporate disputes.

Similar to the amendments relating to fee-shifting provisions, Section 115 does not prevent the application of any forum selection provision (even those selecting a state other than Delaware as the exclusive forum) in a stockholders’ agreement or other writing signed by the stockholder against whom the provision is to be enforced.12

Other DGCL Amendments

The DGCL amendments also, among other things:

  • Provide flexibility in stock and option issuances – Amendments to Section 152 clarify the requirements for board approval of stock to be issued in one or more future transactions and expressly provide that boards may authorize stock to be issued in “at-the-market” programs without having to separately authorize each individual stock issuance.13 Corresponding amendments to Section 157 were also made with respect to authorization of rights and options to purchase stock.14
  • Clarify procedures for rectifying defective corporate acts and stock issuances – Amendments to Sections 204 and 205 clarify and streamline the procedures for ratifying defective corporate acts and stock issuances that would be void or voidable due to a “failure of authorization.”15

Amendments to the LLC and Partnership Acts

Recent amendments to the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “LLC Act”), the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (the “LP Act”) and the Delaware Revised Uniform Partnership Act (the “GP Act” and, collectively with the LLC Act and the LP Act, the “LLC and Partnership Acts”) were also signed into law on June 24, 2015, and will generally go into effect on August 1, 2015. The most significant of these amendments:

  • Eliminate default class or group voting requirements:
    • The LLC Act and the LP Act were amended to eliminate the default class or group voting requirements in connection with (1) the merger or consolidation, transfer or continuance, conversion, dissolution or winding up of a Delaware limited liability company or Delaware limited partnership; and (2) the termination and winding up of a series of a Delaware limited liability company or Delaware limited partnership; however, these amendments also provide that the default voting requirements as in effect on July 31, 2015, will continue to apply to entities whose original certificate of formation or certificate of limited partnership was filed on or before July 31, 2015, unless otherwise provided in such entity’s limited liability company agreement or partnership agreement.16
    • Additionally, the LP Act has been amended (1) to eliminate the default class or group voting requirements in connection with the revocation of dissolution of a Delaware limited partnership or the conversion of a Delaware limited partnership to a Delaware limited liability limited partnership and (2) to eliminate the default class or group requirement for executing a certificate of cancellation for a Delaware limited partnership being wound up by its limited partners. Unlike the eliminated default class or group voting requirements discussed above, these requirements were eliminated regardless of when an original certificate of limited partnership was filed and effective, unless otherwise provided in a partnership agreement.17
    • It is important to note that, even though default class or group voting requirements have been eliminated with respect to certain corporate actions by these amendments, the LLC Act and the LP Act will continue to have default voting requirements in connection with such actions —such default voting requirements will apply to all members or limited partners generally, however, instead of to classes or groups.
  • Clarify that irrevocable power-of-attorney provisions also apply to irrevocable proxies – The LLC and Partnership Acts were amended in 2010 to clarify when a power of attorney would be irrevocable and to explain the effects of such irrevocability.18 The 2015 amendments to the LLC and Partnership Acts provide that the provisions of the LLC and Partnership Acts relating to irrevocable powers of attorney also apply to proxies, and, similarly to the 2010 amendments, they clarify when a proxy will be irrevocable and explain the effects of such irrevocability.19 It is important to note that these amendments do not limit the enforceability of a power of attorney or proxy that is part of a limited liability company agreement or partnership agreement; rather, they simply operate as a default to the extent that the matter is not addressed in the limited liability company agreement or partnership agreement.20
  • Provide for the irrevocable delegation of rights and powers – The LLC and Partnership Acts were amended to provide that, unless otherwise provided in a limited liability company agreement or partnership agreement, a delegation of the rights and powers to manage and control the business and affairs of a Delaware limited liability company, Delaware limited partnership or Delaware general partnership by a member or manager of a Delaware limited liability company, a general partner of a Delaware limited partnership or a partner of a Delaware general partnership shall be irrevocable if such delegation states that it is irrevocable.21 

Contact Information

If you have any questions concerning this alert, please contact:

Garrett A. DeVries
gdevries@akingump.com
214.969.2891
Dallas
Mitchell L. Griffith
mgriffith@akingump.com
214.969.2703
Dallas
Ashton Barrineau Butcher
abutcher@akingump.com
214.969.2835
Dallas
 


1 S. 75, 148 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Del. 2015).

2 Id.

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 See id.

6 91 A.3d 554 (Del. 2014).

7 See S. 75, 148 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Del. 2015).

8 See id.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 99 A.3d 229 (Del. Ch. 2014).

12 See S. 75, 148 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Del. 2015).

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 See S. 76, 77 and 78, 148 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Del. 2015).

17 Id.

18 See H. 372, 373 and 374, 145 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Del. 2010).

19 See S. 76, 77 and 78, 148 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Del. 2015).

20 See id.

21 Id.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.