**

** ```html

Why the Ruling Matters

On February 27, 2026 the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the state’s 2025 corporate‑law overhaul, commonly known as SB 21. The decision preserves a suite of procedural safeguards that make it substantially harder for shareholders to challenge “self‑dealing” mergers, asset sales, and other controlling‑shareholder transactions. For practitioners, the ruling marks a decisive shift toward de‑regulating Chancery review in favor of board‑centric governance, with immediate implications for deal structuring, proxy contests, and litigation strategy.

The Core of SB 21

SB 21 amended the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) in three critical ways:

1. Independent‑director committee safe harbor. A transaction approved by a board committee composed of a majority of independent directors is presumed to satisfy the business‑judgment rule, barring a showing of bad faith or gross negligence. See Del. Gen. Corp. Law § 141(a) (2025) (amended).
2. Public‑shareholder vote safe harbor. If a controlling‑shareholder deal receives approval from a majority of disinterested shareholders voting on the transaction itself (rather than on a separate advisory ballot), the transaction is similarly insulated. Id.
3. Limitation on “fair‑price” challenges. The statute curtails the ability of dissenting shareholders to pursue appraisal rights or breach‑of‑fiduciary‑duty claims when either of the above procedural thresholds is met.

The Delaware Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, affirmed that these procedural shields are consistent with the state’s longstanding “business‑judgment rule” doctrine and do not impermissibly curtail the Court of Chancery’s equitable jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the DGCL expressly permits the legislature to “provide for the protection of corporate transactions from disruptive litigation” (Del. Gen. Corp. Law § 102(b)(7) (2025) (emphasis added)).

What the Court Said

Chief Justice Collins, writing for the Court, noted that the “primary purpose of these reforms is to reduce the cost and uncertainty that arise from shareholder‑class lawsuits that often serve more as a bargaining chip than a genuine remedy.” The opinion rejected plaintiffs’ argument that SB 21 violated the Due Process Clause of the Delaware Constitution by creating a “two‑tiered” system of review, holding that “the statute draws a clear line based on the presence of independent oversight, a principle that has long been recognized as a legitimate means of safeguarding shareholder interests.”

Importantly, the Court distinguished the new safe‑harbor provisions from the “enhanced scrutiny” standard articulated in Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985). While Unocal still governs cases lacking the statutory safeguards, the Court affirmed that SB 21 “does not eliminate the Court’s equitable jurisdiction; it merely narrows the factual scenarios in which that jurisdiction is triggered.”

Practical Implications for Lawyers

1. Deal‑Structuring Becomes More Predictable. Counsel can now advise controlling shareholders that securing an independent‑director committee vote—or, where feasible, a public‑shareholder vote—will likely shield the transaction from the “fair‑price” litigation that has traditionally plagued cross‑border M&A. This reduces the need for costly “poison‑pill” defenses in many deals.

2. Proxy‑Solicitation Strategies Shift. Activist investors will need to focus more on securing disinterested shareholder support rather than relying on procedural challenges. Proxy advisory firms must adjust their voting recommendations to reflect the heightened importance of independent‑director composition.

3. Appraisal Litigation Landscape Changes. The Court’s endorsement of SB 21’s appraisal limitations means that post‑closing appraisal claims will be viable only where the statutory safe‑harbor thresholds are not met. Practitioners should therefore conduct a “SB 21 compliance check” as part of any diligence protocol, documenting the independence of committee members and the adequacy of shareholder disclosures.

4. Increased Emphasis on Corporate Governance Documentation. Boards will need to maintain meticulous minutes and voting records to demonstrate compliance with the independent‑director majority requirement. Failure to do so could expose the transaction to a “procedural defect” claim, potentially reviving Chancery scrutiny under the traditional “enhanced scrutiny” standard.

Potential Counter‑Arguments and Ongoing Risks

Despite the Court’s endorsement, the decision does not render all shareholder‑rights litigation moot. Critics argue that SB 21 may incentivize “rubber‑stamp” committees composed of nominally independent directors who lack genuine oversight capability. Courts may still apply “substantive” fiduciary‑duty analysis under § 141(a) if there are credible allegations of conflicts of interest or bad‑faith conduct.

Moreover, the decision may spur legislative backlash. Lawmakers in other states could adopt similar statutes, prompting a patchwork of standards that complicates multi‑jurisdictional deals. Practitioners should monitor parallel developments in New York, Nevada, and Texas, where “anti‑locker” statutes are already under discussion.

Bottom Line

The Delaware Supreme Court’s affirmation of SB 21 is a watershed moment for corporate governance. By enshrining procedural safe‑harbors, the Court has effectively raised the bar for shareholder‑derivative and appraisal challenges, shifting the battleground from the courtroom to the boardroom and the proxy‑statement. Lawyers must now integrate SB 21 compliance into every stage of a controlling‑shareholder transaction— from initial deal structuring through post‑closing governance— or risk exposing their clients to renewed litigation risk.

“The legislature has spoken plainly: where independent oversight exists, the courts will defer to the business judgment of directors.” – Chief Justice Collins, Delaware Supreme Court (2026).

``` **