Delaware Code

8 Del. C. § 225 (2026)

Contested election of directors; proceedings to determine validity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Upon application of any stockholder or director, or any officer whose title to office is contested, the Court of Chancery may hear and determine the validity of any election, appointment, removal or resignation of any director or officer of any corporation, and the right of any person to hold or continue to hold such office, and, in case any such office is claimed by more than 1 person, may determine the person entitled thereto; and to that end make such order or decree in any such case as may be just and proper, with power to enforce the production of any books, papers and records of the corporation relating to the issue. In case it should be determined that no valid election has been held, the Court of Chancery may order an election to be held in accordance with § 211 or § 215 of this title. In any such application, service of copies of the application upon the registered agent of the corporation shall be deemed to be service upon the corporation and upon the person whose title to office is contested and upon the person, if any, claiming such office; and the registered agent shall forward immediately a copy of the application to the corporation and to the person whose title to office is contested and to the person, if any, claiming such office, in a postpaid, sealed, registered letter addressed to such corporation and such person at their post-office addresses last known to the registered agent or furnished to the registered agent by the applicant stockholder. The Court may make such order respecting further or other notice of such application as it deems proper under the circumstances.

(b) Upon application of any stockholder or upon application of the corporation itself, the Court of Chancery may hear and determine the result of any vote of stockholders upon matters other than the election of directors or officers. Service of the application upon the registered agent of the corporation shall be deemed to be service upon the corporation, and no other party need be joined in order for the Court to adjudicate the result of the vote. The Court may make such order respecting notice of the application as it deems proper under the circumstances.

(c) If 1 or more directors has been convicted of a felony in connection with the duties of such director or directors to the corporation, or if there has been a prior judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction that 1 or more directors has committed a breach of the duty of loyalty in connection with the duties of such director or directors to that corporation, then, upon application by the corporation, or derivatively in the right of the corporation by any stockholder, in a subsequent action brought for such purpose, the Court of Chancery may remove from office such director or directors if the Court determines that the director or directors did not act in good faith in performing the acts resulting in the prior conviction or judgment and judicial removal is necessary to avoid irreparable harm to the corporation. In connection with such removal, the Court may make such orders as are necessary to effect such removal. In any such application, service of copies of the application upon the registered agent of the corporation shall be deemed to be service upon the corporation and upon the director or directors whose removal is sought; and the registered agent shall forward immediately a copy of the application to the corporation and to such director or directors, in a postpaid, sealed, registered letter addressed to such corporation and such director or directors at their post office addresses last known to the registered agent or furnished to the registered agent by the applicant. The Court may make such order respecting further or other notice of such application as it deems proper under the circumstances.

8 Del. C. 1953, §  225;  56 Del. Laws, c. 5063 Del. Laws, c. 25, §  1165 Del. Laws, c. 127, §  774 Del. Laws, c. 84, §  976 Del. Laws, c. 252, §  377 Del. Laws, c. 14, §  1077 Del. Laws, c. 253, §  26
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 106 cases (44 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Solomon v. Pathe Commc'ns Corp., 672 A.2d 35 (Del. 1996).
Solomon v. Pathe Commc'ns Corp., 672 A.2d 35 (Del. 1996). “In an action instituted by CLBN, brought pursuant to 8 Del.C. § 225, to verify the validity of this action, the Court of Chancery held that the removal of these individuals was proper.”
Schroder v. Scotten, Dillon Co., 299 A.2d 431 (Del. Ch. 1972). · cites it 2× “DUFFY, Chancellor: This is an action under 8 Del.C. § 225 to determine the present directors and officers of Scotten, Dillon Company, a Delaware corporation.”
H. Frederick Johnston Sandra Spillane v. Arbitrium (Cayman Islands) Handels Ag Miklos Vendel, 198 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 1999). “Indeed, the judge who was in all likelihood the most respected Chancellor in this century’s Delaware jurisprudence, the late Collins Seitz (who was later to become a distinguished federal Circuit Judge — and Chief Judge — of the Third Circuit 1 ), has spoken of an 8 Del.C. § 225…”
Sundlun v. Exec. Jet Aviation, Inc., 273 A.2d 282 (Del. Ch. 1970). · cites it 2× “In Count Four plaintiff applies to the Court under 8 Del.C. § 225 for a determination of the validity of the election of directors on July 1, 1970, by written consent pursuant to 8 Del.”
Genger v. Genger, 121 A.D.3d 270 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “Arie refused to recognize the Trump Group’s authority, and thereafter the Trump Group filed suit against Arie in the Delaware Chancery Court for a determination pursuant to 8 Del Code Ann § 225 as to which stockholder group controlled TRI.”
Baron v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp., 337 A.2d 653 (Del. Ch. 1975). “Plaintiff originally brought suit as a stockholder of the defendant Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, a Delaware corporation, (hereafter “Allied”) to have the 1973 election of directors declared illegal and invalid and to have a master appointed to conduct a new election…”
Chew v. Inverness Mgt. Corp., 352 A.2d 426 (Del. Ch. 1976). “This litigation was commenced as an application under the review of corporate election provisions of 8 Del.C. § 225 for the setting of a hearing date followed by a determination by the Court of the validity of a purported election of a board of directors of the respondent…”
Essential Enter. Corp. v. Automatic Steel Prod., 164 A.2d 437 (Del. Ch. 1960). · cites it 2× “This action was commenced as one under 8 Del.C. § 225 by a majority stockholder of the corporate defendant to determine the validity of action taken to remove certain directors and the election of others to replace them.”
G. Burton Liese v. Jupiter Corp., 241 A.2d 492 (Del. Ch. 1968). · cites it 2× “II I first consider the petition to review the election of directors under 8 Del.C. § 225. 2 At this point I assume, without deciding, that there has been a default in the payment of one or more dividends on the preferred stock and, under the charter, the holders of preferred…”
Burr v. Burr Corp., 291 A.2d 409 (Del. Ch. 1972). “SHORT, Vice Chancellor: This action was commenced pursuant to 8 Del.C. § 225 for a determination as to the validity of an election of certain directors of the Burr Corporation.”
Gellis v. S. Gellis & Co., Inc., 322 A.2d 287 (Del. Ch. 1974). “The petition was brought under Section 225 of the General Corporation Law, 8 Del.C. § 225, wherein plaintiffs pray that the election of the individual defendants as directors of the Company be declared null and void and that the plain *288 tiffs’ slate of nominees be declared…”
Levin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 221 A.2d 499 (Del. Ch. 1966). “votes, and when the vote is completed, count and ascertain the number of shares voted respectively for and against the amendment, and shall declare whether the persons or bodies corporate holding the majority of the voting stock of the corporation * * have voted for or against…”
— 8 Del. C. § 225(a) — 24 cases
— 8 Del. C. § 225(b) — 5 cases
— 8 Del. C. § 225(c) — 3 cases
Friedman v. Dolan (Del. Ch. 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.