Beneficial Owner Has No Right To Inspect Delaware Corporation's Books Under California Law

AM
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

Contributor

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP logo
Allen Matkins, founded in 1977, is a California-based law firm with more than 200 attorneys in four major metropolitan areas of California: Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, and San Francisco. The firm's areas of focus include real estate, construction, land use, environmental and natural resources, corporate and securities, real estate and commercial finance, bankruptcy, restructurings and creditors' rights, joint ventures, and tax; labor and employment, and trials, litigation, risk management, and alternative dispute resolution in all of these areas. For more information about Allen Matkins please visit www.allenmatkins.com.
Corporations Code Section 1601(a) unambiguously bestows on shareholders the right to inspect the accounting books, records, and minutes of proceedings of the shareholders and the board...
United States Corporate/Commercial Law
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Corporations Code Section 1601(a) unambiguously bestows on shareholders the right to inspect the accounting books, records, and minutes of proceedings of the shareholders and the board and committees of the board of any foreign corporation keeping any records in California  or having its principal executive office in California. 

When a stockholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation, filed a petition for writ of mandate  under Section 1601, the trial court rejected the petition, ruling:

Under Gilead's Certificate of Incorporation, claims falling within the internal affairs doctrine are subject to the "sole and exclusive forum'"of Delaware. . . .  Petitioner's request for inspection and the present Petition for Writ of Mandate, fall within the internal affairs doctrine. . . .  The sole forum for this petition is Delaware.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal sidestepped the question of whether the internal affairs doctrine governed a shareholder's inspection rights under Section 1601.  Instead, it found that the petitioner lacked standing because he was not a "shareholder", as defined in Section 185 of the California Corporations Code (i.e., a "one who is a holder of record of shares").  Ramirez v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.,  2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 558.  

For more on the question of whether inspection rights are an "internal affair", see  Professor Bainbridge Asks "Are shareholder inspection rights subject to the internal affairs doctrine?

La Fête Nationale

"Liberty, equality, fraternity, or death; - the last, much the easiest to bestow" - Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More