Mark D. Harris and Margaret A. Dale
On Aug. 7, 2019 the Delaware Supreme Court held in Tiger v. Boast Apparel that documents produced pursuant to books-and-records inspection requests under §220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law are not subject to a presumption of confidentiality. Rather, while courts can impose confidentiality restrictions in appropriate cases, there must be some justification that the confidentiality is necessary and indefinite periods of confidentiality should be the exception and not the rule.
Background
In 2010 Alex Tiger and John Dowling attempted to revive the Boast apparel brand, originally created by tennis player Bill St. John, through a joint venture called Boast Investors (later converted to the named defendant in the case, BAI Capital Holdings). Dowling and Tiger had several disputes running this venture, including a series of transactions whereby Dowling increased his equity stake in Boast Investors despite opposition from Tiger. Tiger and Dowling tried, but failed, to resolve these disagreements through negotiations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
