Surrender in the Forum Selection Bylaw Battle

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation 2013-10-28


Editor's Note: Theodore N. Mirvis is a partner in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. The following post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Mirvis, William Savitt, and Ryan A. McLeod.

Earlier this month, the stockholder plaintiffs who unsuccessfully challenged the legality of forum selection bylaws in the Court of Chancery dropped their appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. This capitulation leaves Chancellor Strine’s well-reasoned June 2013 decision in the Chevron case—holding that directors have the power and authority to adopt bylaws limiting the courts in which stockholder internal-affairs litigation may be filed—as the last word on the subject. Affirmance by the Supreme Court was widely expected. That would have been a welcome answer to those who still harbor doubt on the issue. The plaintiffs’ decision to dismiss their appeal only underscores the incontestability of the Chancellor’s ruling. And that surrender should not diminish the significant advance that the forum selection bylaw represents as a potential solution to the epidemic of duplicative, multi-jurisdictional stockholder litigation.

Click here to read the complete post...


From feeds: Aggregation Hub » The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation


practitioner publications boards of directors wachtell lipton court cases delaware cases delaware law theodore mirvis william savitt charter & bylaws forum selection ryan mcleod


Theodore Mirvis, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz,

Date tagged:

10/28/2013, 09:50

Date published:

10/28/2013, 09:21