Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Preferred Stock Transactions

Nov 19, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

Even though a certificate of designations is approved by a company’s board of directors without the need for stockholder approval at the time a preferred series is created, any amendments to terms established by that certificate of designations would require the approval of all stockholders entitled to vote unless a company’s certificate of incorporation otherwise provides.  If a preferred certificate of designations is adopted solely by board approval as permitted by Section 151(a) of the DGCL, it would stand to reason that the board and/or holders of shares of the affected series of preferred stock would be entitled to amend the certificate of designation to adjust the dividend rate or otherwise affect the rights of the preferred stockholders, without any need for other stockholder approvals.  However, this is not the case.  Under Section 151(g) of the DGCL, once a certificate of designations has been filed with the Delaware secretary of state and become effective, it has the effect of amending the company’s certificate of incorporation.  Thereafter, if a company desires to amend terms established in the certificate of designations, the company must comply with Section 242 of the DGCL.  Section 242, among other things, requires approval of all stockholders entitled to vote on the amendment (in addition to any required class vote) unless no preferred shares have been issued under the certificate of designations.  Practically speaking, this requirement typically means approval of the common stockholders and the preferred stockholders, each voting separately, is required to amend terms established in the preferred certificate of designations.  Oftentimes, a company desires the right to amend a preferred certificate of designations solely with the vote of holders of the preferred series.  Companies that desire this flexibility cannot simply insert a provision in the certificate of designations for a new preferred series that denies consent rights to other series of capital stock on amendments affecting only the terms of the new series.  Rather, in addition to inclusion of such a “preferred only” consent right provision in the certificate of designations, the certificate of incorporation itself must already contain a provision to such effect (i.e., that common stockholders will not be entitled to vote on any amendment to a certificate of designations if the holders of such affected series are entitled to vote on the amendment), or the certificate of incorporation must be amended, with approval of the common stockholders, to so provide.

The above limitations and requirements should be kept in mind when drafting an initial certificate of incorporation for a company where the possibility of a future preferred issuance exists, as well as when creating or amending a new series of preferred stock.  Such restrictions determine what rights may be granted to the preferred holders under the certificate of designations without seeking further approvals or what approvals are required in connection with an amendment to the certificate of designations, as the case may be.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 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.