Kaan Ekiner, writing in the Delaware Business Court Insider, discusses O’Neill v. Summit Materials, 2025 WL 3688741 (Del. Ch. Dec. 19, 2025), a case where the plaintiff initiated a plenary action alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with Summit Materials’ merger with Quikrete Holdings. After the plaintiff dismissed the plenary action without prejudice, he initiated a books and records demand. A trial on paper record was held, and the magistrate found that the plaintiff lacked a proper purpose for inspection, relying on the notion that a stockholder does not act with a proper purpose under Section 220 to investigate matters that have already been placed at issue in a plenary action. Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David resolved exceptions taken to the magistrate’s post-trial report that held that the plaintiff failed to state a proper purpose for inspection. While an impending statute of limitations presents as the catalyst for a plaintiff stockholder to feel pressure to file a plenary action, this case makes it clear that there are other circumstances and consequences that litigants must consider in reaching a fact-dependent decision.
To read the full article, click here. (Subscription required.)