Boilermakers Local 154 Retirement Fund v. Chevron Corp., 73 A.3d 934 (Del. Ch. 2013)

Boilermakers Local 154 v. Chevron, 2013 WL — (Del. Ch. June 25, 2013)は,裁判地を定める附属定款の有効性が争われた事案ですが,有効とされました。実際に規定された条項(修正後)は次のようなものです。

Unless the Corporation consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the sole and exclusive forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Corporation, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or other employee of the Corporation to the Corporation or the Corporation’s stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or (iv) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine shall be a state or federal court located within the state of Delaware, in all cases subject to the court’s having personal jurisdiction over the indispensible parties named as defendants. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of capital stock of the Corporation shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to the provisions of this [bylaw].

第一感では,そんなに広範な条項でもないと思えるのですが,どうなのでしょうか。長期的にstate competitionに与える影響が気になります。

via M&A Law Prof Blog, Morris Nicholas Delaware Alert, The D&O Diary



このサイトはスパムを低減するために Akismet を使っています。コメントデータの処理方法の詳細はこちらをご覧ください