/ 4 min read
Delaware’s Senate Bill 21 (S.B. 21) has become the focal point of a larger debate over the balance between legislative prerogative and the Delaware Court of Chancery’s equitable oversight of internal corporate conduct. With interlocutory appeals now before the Delaware Supreme Court in Thomas Drew Rutledge v. Clearway Energy Group LLC, et al., the justices’ 2026 ruling is poised to shape fiduciary‑duty litigation, information‑rights practice, and state‑by‑state competition for corporate incorporation.
What S.B. 21 Does
S.B. 21, enacted on March 25, 2025, revises Delaware corporate law in two significant ways. First, it expands liability shields for certain corporate acts involving controlling stockholders and potentially conflicted officers or directors, narrowing the circumstances in which fiduciary liability may apply. Second, it tightens stockholder access to corporate books and records by contracting the scope of information that can be compelled and increasing the evidentiary burden for proving a proper purpose to obtain it. Together, these changes have the practical effect of reducing litigation exposure for controlling stockholders and conflicted transactions, and of limiting internal corporate information rights that often prompt fiduciary claims by minority stockholders.
How We Got Here: Legislative Context and “DExit” Pressures
S.B. 21 passed amid a period of heightened scrutiny of controlling stockholder influence and governance constraints in Delaware’s business courts, with cases in the Palkon, Moelis, and, perhaps most notably, Musk orbit drawing national attention. At the same time, a trend dubbed “DExit” – which was the real or threatened exodus and reincorporation of companies in states outside of Delaware – gained momentum as some companies cited perceived litigation risk and judicial second guessing of what was thought to be autonomous internal corporate actions. Importantly, DExit carries fiscal implications for Delaware, where corporate franchise taxes and related revenue account for roughly one-third of the State’s budget, according to Governor Matt Meyer. The passing of S.B. 21 was the policy response to the DExit phenomenon, as it aimed to incentivize the retention of the more than 2.2 million registered entities in the State and to bolster the State’s reputation as a business-friendly venue.
The Clearway Case: Constitutional Challenge to S.B. 21
The Clearway case presents the Delaware Supreme Court with interlocutory questions about whether S.B. 21 violates the Delaware Constitution by diminishing the Court of Chancery’s inherent equitable powers. The challengers contend that the statute impermissibly curtails the Court of Chancery’s discretionary ability to identify and remedy fiduciary breaches – what they characterize as the court’s traditional “power to do equity,” including with respect to potential conflict of interest transactions. The State’s contention is that the Delaware General Assembly acted within its constitutional authority to refine and cabin the State’s corporate law, and rejects the notion that legislative adjustments to fiduciary standards or information rights cross separation‑of‑powers lines. As to where the case stands now, procedurally, the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 5, 2025.
What to Watch in the 2026 Ruling
The Clearway holding will likely provide important clarifications relating to the following corporate governance issues:
- Separation of powers and equity. The Court’s framing of the Court of Chancery’s inherent powers versus the legislature’s prerogative to define, refine, and amend corporate rights and liabilities will be foundational. A decision that treats certain remedial or oversight capacities as constitutionally entrenched would constrain future legislative statutory revisions, while a decision upholding the validity of S.B. 21 could embolden broader legislative experiments to further shield stockholder litigation.
- Retroactivity. The Court may address the extent to which liability shields and information‑rights limits can apply to pending or accrued claims. Expect analysis of reliance interests and any constitutional limits on retroactive impairment of remedies.
- Scope and severability. If any provision of S.B. 21 is invalid, the opinion may parse whether to sever discrete applications (for example, retroactive reach) while preserving the statute’s prospective effects, or whether a broader defect undermines core features of S.B. 21.
- Interaction with fiduciary‑duty doctrines. The ruling may clarify whether S.B. 21 merely adjusts pleading burdens and presumptions or crosses into impermissible insulation of conduct that the Court of Chancery’s prior equitable jurisdiction would have otherwise reviewed and remedied.
- Books‑and‑records practice. If the Court addresses the reduction of access to books and records, it may refine the evidentiary showing required to obtain corporate materials that often undergird fiduciary claims, which will impact early‑stage litigation calculations.
Implications for Dealmaking, Litigation, and Competition
For board of directors, officers, and controlling stockholders, the outcome of the Clearway case could green light an enticing liability-protection infrastructure and reinforce the notion that the State of Delaware is second to none as a venue in which to incorporate. Capital markets and competing states will also be monitoring the outcome closely, as the invalidation of S.B. 21 could incentivize the reincorporation of companies in rival jurisdictions such as Texas and Nevada, which are increasingly seen as more hospitable to internal corporate governance. In either case, the Clearway decision is one to watch for in 2026.