Validity of Stockholder Agreements with Delaware Corporations

Effective August 1, 2024, the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) was amended to include a new Section 122(18), pursuant to which corporations are expressly permitted to enter into contracts that:

  1. restrict or prohibit the corporation from taking actions specified in the contract;
  2. require the approval or consent of one or more persons or bodies before the corporation may take actions specified in the contract; and
  3. covenant that the corporation or one or more persons or bodies will take, or refrain from taking, actions specified in the contract.

The new Section 122(18) was enacted less than six months after the Delaware Court of Chancery invalidated numerous affirmative and restrictive covenants contained in a  stockholder agreement between the corporation and a particular stockholder. In West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Moelis & Company, the Court declared that such affirmative and restrictive covenants violated Section 141(a) (and in one instance, Section 141(c)) of the DGCL by improperly taking power away from the board of directors to manage the business and affairs of the corporation. This ruling caused many Delaware corporations and their stockholders to question the validity of their own stockholder agreements, which have become a common tool to implement corporate governance arrangements. In response, the Delaware legislature quickly moved to amend the DGCL to expressly permit corporations to enter into stockholder agreements (and other contracts) that grant stockholders (and other stakeholders) rights concerning the internal management of the corporation.

While Section 122(18) provides clarity about whether certain stockholder agreements are facially valid, it remains true that actions taken in accordance with a stockholder agreement can be challenged on other grounds, including for breach of fiduciary duties. Therefore, directors, stockholders, and other stakeholders should continue to be mindful of what types of corporate governance rights and obligations are set forth in a stockholder agreement (or other contract).

Moreover, it should be noted that a stockholder agreement (or other contract) is within the scope of Section 122(18) only if the corporation enters into it “for such minimum consideration as determined by the board of directors (which may include inducing stockholders or beneficial owners of stock to take, or refrain from taking, one or more actions).” It remains to be seen how courts will apply this requirement in the future cases. In the meantime, parties should ensure that a corporation receives an identifiable form of consideration in exchange for entering into a stockholder agreement (or other contract).

This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。

Related Capabilities

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

Validity of Stockholder Agreements with Delaware Corporations

Effective August 1, 2024, the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) was amended to include a new Section 122(18), pursuant to which corporations are expressly permitted to enter into contracts that:

  1. restrict or prohibit the corporation from taking actions specified in the contract;
  2. require the approval or consent of one or more persons or bodies before the corporation may take actions specified in the contract; and
  3. covenant that the corporation or one or more persons or bodies will take, or refrain from taking, actions specified in the contract.

The new Section 122(18) was enacted less than six months after the Delaware Court of Chancery invalidated numerous affirmative and restrictive covenants contained in a  stockholder agreement between the corporation and a particular stockholder. In West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Moelis & Company, the Court declared that such affirmative and restrictive covenants violated Section 141(a) (and in one instance, Section 141(c)) of the DGCL by improperly taking power away from the board of directors to manage the business and affairs of the corporation. This ruling caused many Delaware corporations and their stockholders to question the validity of their own stockholder agreements, which have become a common tool to implement corporate governance arrangements. In response, the Delaware legislature quickly moved to amend the DGCL to expressly permit corporations to enter into stockholder agreements (and other contracts) that grant stockholders (and other stakeholders) rights concerning the internal management of the corporation.

While Section 122(18) provides clarity about whether certain stockholder agreements are facially valid, it remains true that actions taken in accordance with a stockholder agreement can be challenged on other grounds, including for breach of fiduciary duties. Therefore, directors, stockholders, and other stakeholders should continue to be mindful of what types of corporate governance rights and obligations are set forth in a stockholder agreement (or other contract).

Moreover, it should be noted that a stockholder agreement (or other contract) is within the scope of Section 122(18) only if the corporation enters into it “for such minimum consideration as determined by the board of directors (which may include inducing stockholders or beneficial owners of stock to take, or refrain from taking, one or more actions).” It remains to be seen how courts will apply this requirement in the future cases. In the meantime, parties should ensure that a corporation receives an identifiable form of consideration in exchange for entering into a stockholder agreement (or other contract).

This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。

Related Capabilities

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

News and Insights

Event

Partner Terri Mascherin to Speak at Illinois State Bar Association Seminar on Negotiation Ethics

On November 11, Partner Terri Mascherin will join a faculty panel for the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) continuing legal education (CLE) seminar “Negotiation Ethics: Winning Without Selling Your Soul.”

November 11, 2026

Publications

Before You Sign: Key Contract Provisions for Tribes Considering Data Center Developments, ICT

Grace Signorelli-Cassady of Jenner & Block’s Native American Law Practice authored an opinion piece for ICT examining key contract provisions tribes should consider when approached about data center developments.

November 5, 2026

Publications

Jon Skladany and Kayvan Sadeghi Quoted on Fintech Investigation Readiness in Law360

Jenner & Block Partners Jon Skladany and Kayvan Sadeghi were quoted in a Law360 article examining how crypto and fintech companies are preparing for heightened congressional oversight following the 2026 midterm elections.

November 5, 2026

Publications

Partner Emily Loeb Discusses What the 2026 Midterms Mean for Congressional Oversight in the Financial Times

Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block’s Congressional Investigations Practice, was quoted in the Financial Times in an article examining how companies are preparing for congressional oversight as the new Congress takes shape following the 2026 midterm elections.

November 4, 2026

Publications

Congressional Oversight after Trump v. United States, Lawfare

Special Counsel David Manners-Weber authored an article for Lawfare examining how the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States may weaken Congress’s ability to investigate the executive branch.

 

November 2, 2026

Publications

In Politico, Partner Emily Loeb Discusses How Companies Are Preparing for Congressional Oversight 

Partner Emily Loeb was spoke with Politico for a story examining how companies are preparing for heightened congressional oversight, particularly those that could become the focus of investigations centered on affordability and accountability. 

 

October 29, 2026