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 David Greenwald to Speak at PLI Program on Privilege and AI

On August 17, David Greenwald will speak at "Fitting New “Tech” Into the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection," a virtual program hosted by the Practising Law Institute (PLI).

August 17, 2026

Publications

In Law360, Trump Debarment Threat Calls for Targeted Defense Plan

Partners Ashley Callen and David Robbins authored an article for Law360 examining how entities should respond when suspension or debarment is threatened directly by the president, rather than initiated through the usual agency-driven process.

August 6, 2026

Publications

"DC Circuit Undercuts Congress's Subpoena Power: Important New Authority for Targets of Congressional Investigations," National Law Journal

In the National Law Journal, Congressional Investigations Co-Chair Emily Loeb, Special Counsel David Manners-Weber, and Associate Kate Mather examine a recent DC Circuit decision that gives fresh weight to 2020 Supreme Court dicta on common-law privileges in congressional investigations.

July 30, 2026

Publications

Meghan Greenfield Discusses Top Environmental Policies to Watch in Law360

Partner Meghan Greenfield spoke to for an article highlighting the key environmental regulatory developments expected in the second half of 2026. Meghan discussed the legal reasoning the agency may rely on as it considers further rulemaking addressing greenhouse gas pollution, and hurdles the agency may face. 

July 22, 2026

Publications

Partner Meghan Greenfield Quoted in The Associated Press on Offshore Wind and National Security

Partner Meghan Greenfield spoke with The Associated Press for an article examining the Trump Administration's use of national security justifications to halt offshore wind development.

July 21, 2026