Del. C. » Title 8 — · CHAPTER 1. General Corporation Law · Corporations
Delaware Code

8 Del. C. § 291 (2026)

Receivers for insolvent corporations; appointment and powers

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

Whenever a corporation shall be insolvent, the Court of Chancery, on the application of any creditor or stockholder thereof, may, at any time, appoint 1 or more persons to be receivers of and for the corporation, to take charge of its assets, estate, effects, business and affairs, and to collect the outstanding debts, claims, and property due and belonging to the corporation, with power to prosecute and defend, in the name of the corporation or otherwise, all claims or suits, to appoint an agent or agents under them, and to do all other acts which might be done by the corporation and which may be necessary or proper. The powers of the receivers shall be such and shall continue so long as the Court shall deem necessary.

8 Del. C. 1953, §  291;  56 Del. Laws, c. 50.; 
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1958–2024 · leading case: Prod. Resources Grp., L.L.C. v. NCT Grp., Inc., 863 A.2d 772 (Del. Ch. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Prod. Resources Grp., L.L.C. v. NCT Grp., Inc., 863 A.2d 772 (Del. Ch. 2004). “PRG’s Claim For A Receiver Under 8 Del. C. § 291 PRG seeks the appointment of a receiver under 8 Del.”
Solution Trust v. 2100 Grand LLC (In re AWTR Liquidation Inc.), 548 B.R. 300 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2016). “”); and 8 Del.Code § 291 (using the word “insolvent” without further definition in the context of court appointment of receiver(s) for an "insolvent” corporation); U.”
Lank v. Fed. Ins. Co., 309 F. Supp. 349 (D. Del. 1970). “I Plaintiffs Motion To Remand On April 22, 1969, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, pursuant to 8 Del.C. § 291, appointed the plaintiff, Aubrey B.”
Lank v. New York Stock Exch., 405 F. Supp. 1031 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). “” 8 Del. Code Ann. § 291 (1975). The order of the Delaware Court appointing Lank the Receiver of Pickard tracks the language of the statute.”
Paulman v. Kritzer Radiant Coils, Inc., 143 A.2d 272 (Del. Ch. 1958). “Defendant challenges this construction of the statute, pointing out that the statute uses the word "may" appoint a receiver. I am satisfied that defendant's suggested construction of the statute is correct.”
New York Stock Exch. v. Pickard & Co., 274 A.2d 148 (Del. Ch. 1971). “8 Del.C. § 291. A. In 1965 Buswell became a customer of Pickard and established a margin account with it.”
State v. Nat'l Auto. Ins. Co., 290 A.2d 675 (Del. Ch. 1972). “Pearce, Leora Pearce, Harry McDonald, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company against National Automobile Insurance Company which is in receivership under the insolvency statute, 8 Del.C. § 291. A. Given the time which has passed since the happening of the events…”
New York Stock Exch. v. Pickard & Co., 282 A.2d 651 (Del. Ch. 1971). “8 Del.C. § 291. The statutory grounds having been established, the Court appointed a receiver on April 22, 1969.”
New York Stock Exch. v. Pickard & Co., Inc., 296 A.2d 143 (Del. Ch. 1972). “That arrangement continued until April 22, 1969 when, upon petition by NYSE, this Court appointed a Receiver for Pickard under 8 Del.C. § 291 (the insolvency statute). B.”
Martin Lanz Zaslansky v. FZ Holdings US, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2022). · cites it 7× “2 1 Unless otherwise stated, the facts are drawn from Petitioners’ Verified Petition for Breach of Contract & for the Appointment of a Receiver to a Delaware Corporporation Pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 291, C.A. No. 2021-0168-KSJM, Docket (“Dkt.”
In re Geneius Biotechnology, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2017). · cites it 6× “Because of their disagreements, the minority stockholder petitioned this Court to appoint a receiver under 8 Del. C. § 291, alleging that the company is insolvent and a neutral party is necessary to salvage the company’s remaining value, which is its intellectual property.”
Fourner v. Flats Indus., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2021). · cites it 6× “For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Fournier's third Motion to Amend Verified Complaint.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
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.