Businesslawprofessors iconBusinesslawprofessorsSep 11, 2026 ~1 min source read

Checking in on Delaware developments

Franklin, VC Will concluded that a take-private involving a conflicted director and conflicted CEO did not satisfy the safe harbors of DGCL 144 and therefore could be the subject of a shareholder fiduciary claim. The case is generally interesting as one of the early interpretations of the new safe harbors, and in particular, the 144(a)(2) safe harbor, concerning the cleansing effect of a shareholder vote.

Share this story

Send the public story page.

Useful takeaways from this story.

Franklin, VC Will concluded that a take-private involving a conflicted director and conflicted CEO did not satisfy the safe harbors of DGCL 144 and therefore could be the subject of a shareholder fiduciary...

I previously <a href="https://www.businesslawprofessors.com/2026/06/this-controller-regrets/" data-type="link"...

The case is generally interesting as one of the early interpretations of the new safe harbors, and in particular, the 144(a)(2) safe harbor, concerning the cleansing effect of a shareholder vote.

Building the complete brief

The page is ready to read now. The fuller skim-friendly version will appear here automatically.

The useful part

Franklin, VC Will concluded that a take-private involving a conflicted director and conflicted CEO did not satisfy the safe harbors of DGCL 144 and therefore could be the subject of a shareholder fiduciary claim. The case is generally interesting as one of the early interpretations of the new safe harbors, and in particular, the 144(a)(2) safe harbor, concerning the cleansing effect of a shareholder vote. I previously <a href="https://www.businesslawprofessors.com/2026/06/this-controller-regrets/" data-type="link"...

What to take from it

I previously worried that the language of the statute might be read to suggest it had altered the definition of what it means for a shareholder vote to be "fully informed," i.e., that shareholders could cleanse transactions with less information than they were required to have previously.

Details worth keeping

Just some things I've been meaning to blog about. Second, this column by Sujeet Indap is a popcorn-worthy report of the trainwreck of a process employed by the Cloudflare board to evaluate a proposal to recapitalize the company in order to extend the founders' sunsetting control rights.

Keep reading in the app

Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.

Open in app