(1) Although inspections are generally subject to a confidentiality order under Article 220, such inspections are not subject to the presumption of confidentiality; and we believe that, although the Court of Opportunity may make section 220 inspections subject to the introduction of an adequate confidentiality order – and this is generally the case – such inspections are not subject to a presumption of confidentiality. We are also keen to see that when the court, in the exercise of its discretion, issues a confidentiality order, the duration of the injunction does not depend on the shareholder`s evidence of the absence of urgent circumstances. On the contrary, the Court of Luck should weigh the legitimate interests of the shareholder in free communication against the legitimate interests of the company in matters of confidentiality. After analyzing Disney`s decisions, the court found that there was no presumption of confidentiality. Id. at *4. In that decision, the Tribunal found that the most recent decisions had misassed Disney`s previous decisions: Delaware courts have repeatedly encouraged shareholders to consider derivative acts on behalf of Delaware companies in order to file Section 220 inspection requests prior to the appeal. Courts have hoped that receiving books and recordings by potential plaintiffs before the lawsuit will discourage unfounded derivative acts – and give more focus and potentially meritorious details. The Tribunal`s decision in Tiger contrasts with the recent trend where the courts have found a presumption of confidentiality in section 220 applications.
- No categories