• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
DE Corporate Law
Main image for Court of Chancery Confirms Treatment of Certain Pre-Suit Correspondence as a Derivative Litigation Demand
Publications|Alert

Court of Chancery Confirms Treatment of Certain Pre-Suit Correspondence as a Derivative Litigation Demand

Delaware Law Update

5.4.2020

“Delaware’s common law of corporations makes it clear that when a stockholder makes a demand upon the company board to take legal action, she is conceding that the directors are able to bring their business judgment to bear to consider that demand.” In Mancine Dahle, et al. v. John C. Pope, et al., the Court of Chancery upheld this Delaware corporate principle when dismissing a complaint brought derivatively on behalf of R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (the company).

Prior to the filing of the complaint, in October 2018, counsel for the plaintiffs sent a letter (the demand letter) to the company’s board of directors “to suggest” corrective action to address alleged excessive director compensation as well as compensation practices and policies. The demand letter made the strong overture of potential litigation by referencing “all available shareholder remedies” absent “immediate remedial measures” by the board. In response to the letter, the board retained outside counsel, initiated an investigation, and, treating the letter as a litigation demand, declined to commence a civil action as being in the best interests of the company.

In February 2019, the plaintiffs filed a three-count derivative complaint alleging demand futility without referencing the demand letter or the board’s response. The Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 23.1 on the grounds that the demand letter constituted a legal pre-suit demand, and the plaintiffs could not (and did not attempt to) satisfy the higher pleading burden for a refused demand. 

In determining that the demand letter constituted a pre-suit demand as a matter of law, the Court relied extensively on Vice Chancellor McCormick’s analysis in Solak ex rel Ultragenyx Pharm. Inc. v. Welch, decided in October 2019 under “virtually identical” factual circumstances. Specifically, the Court found that the demand letter’s strong overtures of litigation coupled with the presentment of the company’s susceptibility to shareholder challenges and the legal basis for such challenges satisfied the governing Yaw test. The Court also noted the fact that the complaint was nearly a “carbon copy” of the demand letter and that the remedial measures sought through the demand letter were consistent with benefits achieved through derivative lawsuits. Finally, the Court did not favor any perceived ambiguity in the demand letter as “tactical wordsmithing” designed to exploit a plaintiff-friendly presumption.

The Dahle and Ultragenyx decisions are a warning to plaintiffs-side counsel that pre-suit demands made on a board of directors have consequences that often preclude the subsequent initiation of litigation. The Court of Chancery will not give in to the tactical wordsmithing or “clever draftsmanship” of pre-litigation “letters” designed to have a board take legal action in response to an explicit demand yet at the same time attempt to avoid the tacit concession that the directors are independent and able to bring their business judgement to consider the demand. Those on the company and board side charged with responding to pre-suit demand letters should take comfort in knowing that the Court of Chancery will review the substance of a pre-suit demand over its form to determine compliance with Rule 23. Before responding, the substance of a pre-suit demand should be thoroughly reviewed to determine whether the stockholders’ requested remedial measures are sufficiently similar to what can be obtained through derivative litigation. If so, any response should make explicit that it is treating the pre-suit communication as a formal demand.

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Travis J. Ferguson
Travis J. Ferguson

Associate

Related Services

Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Corporate
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel