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:
- restrict or prohibit the corporation from taking actions specified in the contract;
- require the approval or consent of one or more persons or bodies before the corporation may take actions specified in the contract; and
- 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。
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 Attorneys
Related Articles
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.
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:
- restrict or prohibit the corporation from taking actions specified in the contract;
- require the approval or consent of one or more persons or bodies before the corporation may take actions specified in the contract; and
- 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。
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 Attorneys
Related Articles
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 Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026
Publications
In Employee Relations Law Journal: What Happens When ERISA Disability Deadlines Slip
Partner Joseph Torres along with Associates Emma O'Connor and Christopher LeWarne, authored an article for the Employee Relations Law Journal analyzing a significant Fourth Circuit decision with substantial consequences for ERISA disability plan administrators.
June 23, 2026
Event
Jenner & Block Partners to Speak at Council on Governmental Relations Conference
On June 11, Partners Mike Vernick, Katie Wynbrandt, and Betsy Henthorne will speak on a panel at the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) meeting.
June 11, 2026