Delaware Code

8 Del. C. § 228 (2026)

Consent of stockholders or members in lieu of meeting [For application of section, see 81 Del. Laws, c. 86, § 40]

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

(a) Unless otherwise provided in the certificate of incorporation, any action required by this chapter to be taken at any annual or special meeting of stockholders of a corporation, or any action which may be taken at any annual or special meeting of such stockholders, may be taken without a meeting, without prior notice and without a vote, if a consent or consents, setting forth the action so taken, shall be signed by the holders of outstanding stock having not less than the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize or take such action at a meeting at which all shares entitled to vote thereon were present and voted and shall be delivered to the corporation in the manner required by this section.

(b) Unless otherwise provided in the certificate of incorporation, any action required by this chapter to be taken at a meeting of the members of a nonstock corporation, or any action which may be taken at any meeting of the members of a nonstock corporation, may be taken without a meeting, without prior notice and without a vote, if a consent or consents, setting forth the action so taken, shall be signed by members having not less than the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize or take such action at a meeting at which all members having a right to vote thereon were present and voted and shall be delivered to the corporation in the manner required by this section.

(c) A consent must be set forth in writing or in an electronic transmission. No consent shall be effective to take the corporate action referred to therein unless consents signed by a sufficient number of holders or members to take action are delivered to the corporation in the manner required by this section within 60 days of the first date on which a consent is so delivered to the corporation. Any person executing a consent may provide, whether through instruction to an agent or otherwise, that such consent will be effective at a future time, including a time determined upon the happening of an event, occurring not later than 60 days after such instruction is given or such provision is made, if evidence of the instruction or provision is provided to the corporation. If the person is not a stockholder or member of record when the consent is executed, the consent shall not be valid unless the person is a stockholder or member of record as of the record date for determining stockholders or members entitled to consent to the action. Unless otherwise provided, any such consent shall be revocable prior to its becoming effective. All references to a “consent” in this section means a consent permitted by this section.

(d) (1) A consent permitted by this section shall be delivered: (i) to the principal place of business of the corporation; (ii) to an officer or agent of the corporation having custody of the book in which proceedings of meetings of stockholders or members are recorded; (iii) to the registered office of the corporation in this State by hand or by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested; or (iv) subject to the next sentence, in accordance with § 116 of this title to an information processing system, if any, designated by the corporation for receiving such consents. In the case of delivery pursuant to the foregoing clause (iv), such consent must set forth or be delivered with information that enables the corporation to determine the date of delivery of such consent and the identity of the person giving such consent, and, if such consent is given by a person authorized to act for a stockholder or member as proxy, such consent must comply with the applicable provisions of § 212(c)(2) and (3) of this title.

(2) Any copy, facsimile or other reliable reproduction of a consent in writing may be substituted or used in lieu of the original writing for any and all purposes for which the original writing could be used, provided that such copy, facsimile or other reproduction shall be a complete reproduction of the entire original writing. A consent may be documented and signed in accordance with § 116 of this title, and when so documented or signed shall be deemed to be in writing for purposes of this title; provided that if such consent is delivered pursuant to clause (i), (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (d)(1) of this section, such consent must be reproduced and delivered in paper form.

(e) If an action by consent under subsections (a) or (b) of this section has been taken by stockholders or members by less than unanimous consent, prompt notice of the taking of the action by consent shall be given to those stockholders or members as of the record date for the action by consent who have not consented and who would have been entitled to notice of the meeting if the action had been taken at a meeting and the record date for the notice of the meeting were the record date for the action by consent. The notice required by this subsection may be provided by a notice which constitutes a notice of internet availability of proxy materials under rules promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq. In the event that the action which is consented to is such as would have required the filing of a certificate under any other section of this title, if such action had been voted on by stockholders or by members at a meeting thereof, the certificate filed under such other section shall state, in lieu of any statement required by such section concerning any vote of stockholders or members, that consent has been given in accordance with this section.

8 Del. C. 1953, §  228;  56 Del. Laws, c. 5056 Del. Laws, c. 186, §  1457 Del. Laws, c. 148, §  1658 Del. Laws, c. 235, §  466 Del. Laws, c. 136, §§  12-1467 Del. Laws, c. 376, §§  7, 870 Del. Laws, c. 349, §  472 Del. Laws, c. 343, §  1573 Del. Laws, c. 82, §  1177 Del. Laws, c. 14, §  1179 Del. Laws, c. 327, §  581 Del. Laws, c. 86, §§ 8-1082 Del. Laws, c. 45, § 982 Del. Laws, c. 256, § 1283 Del. Laws, c. 377, § 884 Del. Laws, c. 98, § 6
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Crutcher v. Tufts, 898 So. 2d 529 (La. Ct. App. 2005).
Crutcher v. Tufts, 898 So. 2d 529 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “The dispute is over the validity of a written consent resolution, which was executed by the majority shareholders pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 228 and CTR's bylaws. On March 15, 2002, David Tufts, as the Family Trust's trustee, and Hal Simeon, as Children Trust's trustee, executed…”
Chew v. Inverness Mgt. Corp., 352 A.2d 426 (Del. Ch. 1976). · cites it 4× “phenson controlled board by applicants’ own candidates, including themselves, but felt that were such course of action taken it would serve as a red flag to incumbent management and result in what ultimately was sought to be accomplished after the filing with incumbent…”
Sundlun v. Exec. Jet Aviation, Inc., 273 A.2d 282 (Del. Ch. 1970). · cites it 3× “On July 1, 1970, the Detroit Bank signed a “Consent of Majority Stockholders in Lieu of Annual or Special Meeting Pursuant to 8 Del.C. § 228’’ which allegedly ousted the then directors of EJA and replaced them with a new board headed by plaintiff.”
Homac, Inc. v. DSA Fin. Corp., 661 F. Supp. 776 (E.D. Mich. 1987). · cites it 2× “The Written Consents As discussed in the findings of fact, Tangent filed written consents pursuant to 8 Del.C. § 228 in an effort to effectuate changes in the Board of Directors, amend the bylaws, and authorize the calling of a Special Meeting.”
Obstfeld Ex Rel. Toev Med. Corp. v. Schwartz, 621 F. Supp. 2d 87 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “tice and without a vote, if a consent or consents in writing, setting forth the action so taken, shall be signed by the holders of outstanding stock having not less than the minimum number of votes that would be necessaiy to authorize or take such action at a meeting at which…”
Burr v. Burr Corp., 291 A.2d 409 (Del. Ch. 1972). “On September 9, 1971 the majority stockholders, by right of consent pursuant to 8 Del.C. § 228, amended Section 3.02 of the by-laws increasing the number of directors to nine.”
Hoschett v. TSI Int'l Software, Ltd., 683 A.2d 43 (Del. Ch. 1996). “To be sure, then Vice Chancellor Hartnett indicated in that opinion that the plaintiffs section 211 claim to compel the holding of an annual meeting was moot because ‘‘[a]fter suit was filed an annual meeting was apparently held pursuant to written stockholder consents executed…”
Everett v. Transnation Dev. Corp., 267 A.2d 627 (Del. Ch. 1970). “See 8 Del.C. § 228. It is defendant’s contention that the April 10 removal of Mrs.”
Anurag Mehta v. Mobile Posse, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2019). · cites it 11× “Count II alleges that the 280G Solicitation violated 8 Del. C. § 228 by failing to disclose material facts necessary for stockholders to decide whether to execute the written consents.”
The Cirillo Fam. Trust v. Aram Moezinia (Del. Ch. 2018). · cites it 3× “2015) (quoting 8 Del C. § 228(a)) (“[A]ny action that may be taken at any annual or special meeting of stockholders may be 19 responsibility.”
Palisades Growth Capital II, L.P. v. Alex Bäcker & Ricardo Bäcker & QLess, Inc. (Nominal Defendant) (Del. Ch. 2020). · cites it 3× “8 Del. C. § 228 governs stockholder consents.”
Friends of Plantations East v. Plantations East HOA, Inc., & Chesapeake Utils. Corp (Del. Ch. 2023). · cites it 3× “8 Del. C. § 228(b) (emphasis added). FPE contends that the Association’s governing documents contemplate member votes at annual or special meetings, thereby implicitly prohibiting action by any other means, including by mail ballot (or written consent).”
— 8 Del. C. § 228(a) — 12 cases
Crutcher v. Tufts, 898 So. 2d 529 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “The dispute is over the validity of a written consent resolution, which was executed by the majority shareholders pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 228 and CTR's bylaws. On March 15, 2002, David Tufts, as the Family Trust's trustee, and Hal Simeon, as Children Trust's trustee, executed…”
Obstfeld Ex Rel. Toev Med. Corp. v. Schwartz, 621 F. Supp. 2d 87 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “tice and without a vote, if a consent or consents in writing, setting forth the action so taken, shall be signed by the holders of outstanding stock having not less than the minimum number of votes that would be necessaiy to authorize or take such action at a meeting at which…”
Chew v. Inverness Mgt. Corp., 352 A.2d 426 (Del. Ch. 1976). “phenson controlled board by applicants’ own candidates, including themselves, but felt that were such course of action taken it would serve as a red flag to incumbent management and result in what ultimately was sought to be accomplished after the filing with incumbent…”
Palisades Growth Capital II, L.P. v. Alex Bäcker & Ricardo Bäcker & QLess, Inc. (Nominal Defendant) (Del. Ch. 2020). “8 Del. C. § 228 governs stockholder consents.”
— 8 Del. C. § 228(b) — 2 cases
Friends of Plantations East v. Plantations East HOA, Inc., & Chesapeake Utils. Corp (Del. Ch. 2023). “8 Del. C. § 228(b) (emphasis added). FPE contends that the Association’s governing documents contemplate member votes at annual or special meetings, thereby implicitly prohibiting action by any other means, including by mail ballot (or written consent).”
— 8 Del. C. § 228(c) — 6 cases
Chew v. Inverness Mgt. Corp., 352 A.2d 426 (Del. Ch. 1976). “phenson controlled board by applicants’ own candidates, including themselves, but felt that were such course of action taken it would serve as a red flag to incumbent management and result in what ultimately was sought to be accomplished after the filing with incumbent…”
The Cirillo Fam. Trust v. Aram Moezinia (Del. Ch. 2018). “2015) (quoting 8 Del C. § 228(a)) (“[A]ny action that may be taken at any annual or special meeting of stockholders may be 19 responsibility.”
Anurag Mehta v. Mobile Posse, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2019). “Count II alleges that the 280G Solicitation violated 8 Del. C. § 228 by failing to disclose material facts necessary for stockholders to decide whether to execute the written consents.”
Friends of Plantations East v. Plantations East HOA, Inc., & Chesapeake Utils. Corp (Del. Ch. 2023). “8 Del. C. § 228(b) (emphasis added). FPE contends that the Association’s governing documents contemplate member votes at annual or special meetings, thereby implicitly prohibiting action by any other means, including by mail ballot (or written consent).”
— 8 Del. C. § 228(e) — 9 cases
Anurag Mehta v. Mobile Posse, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2019). “Count II alleges that the 280G Solicitation violated 8 Del. C. § 228 by failing to disclose material facts necessary for stockholders to decide whether to execute the written consents.”
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.