Corporations, LLCs & Partnerships

Editors (6)

image description
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

Tarik Haskins

Executive Editor, Corporations, LLCs & Partnerships
image description
Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP

Mark D. Hobson

Managing Editor, Corporations, LLCs & Partnerships
image description
Landis Rath & Cobb LLP

Jennifer L. Cree

Contributing Editor, Corporations, LLCs & Partnerships
image description
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP

Michael P. Maxwell

Contributing Editor, Corporations, LLCs & Partnerships
image description
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP

Pamela L. Millard

Contributing Editor, Corporations, LLCs & Partnerships
image description
Fredrikson & Byron PA

John H. Stout

Contributing Editor, Corporations, LLCs & Partnerships
Filter By Topics: Topic

We're Sorry

No Results Found

We're Sorry

No Results Found

We're Sorry

No Results Found

We're Sorry

No Results Found

We're Sorry

No Results Found

MONTH-IN-BRIEF (Sep 2024)

Corporate Charters May Not Incorporate Substantive Provisions of Other Agreements by Reference

By Lisa R. Stark

In Seavitt v. N-Able, Inc., C.A. No. 2023-0326-JTL, 2024 WL 3534476 (Del. Ch. July 25, 2024), the Delaware Court of Chancery invalidated provisions contained in a certificate of incorporation of N-able, Inc., a Delaware corporation (N-able), which purported to incorporate by reference substantive provisions of a stockholders’ agreement. Specifically, the certificate of incorporation provided that some of its provisions relating to, among other things, the election and removal of directors were “subject to” the provisions of a stockholders’ agreement between N-able and its two largest investors, Silver Lake Group, LLC and Thoma Bravo, LLC (the Lead Investors).

The Lead Investors and N-able entered into the stockholders’ agreement in anticipation of an initial public offering of N-able. While N-able argued that Section 102(d) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the DGCL) authorized the incorporation of the terms of the stockholders’ agreement by reference, the Court rejected the argument. Section 102(d) provides, in pertinent part, that “any provision of the certificate of incorporation may be made dependent upon facts ascertainable outside such instrument, provided that the manner in which such facts shall operate upon the provision is clearly and explicitly set forth therein.” Section 102(d) of the DGCL provides that the term “facts” “includes, but is not limited to, the occurrence of any event, including a determination or action by any person or body . . . .” The Court distinguished between “facts” as used in Section 102(d) and the substantive provisions of the stockholders’ agreement at issue, noting that a “fact” is “[s]omething that actually exists; an aspect of reality” or “[a]n actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect, consequence, or interpretation.” A “provision,” by contrast, is a “clause in a statute, contract, or other legal instrument.”

Connect with a global network of over 30,000 business law professionals

18264

Login or Registration Required

You need to be logged in to complete that action.

Register/Login