Key Takeaways

  • Section 141(f) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) allows a board of directors to act by written consent without a formal meeting, provided all members consent in writing.
  • Recent amendments and case law clarify how written consents can be held in escrow, when they become effective, and what procedural requirements (like quorum) must still be met.
  • Written consent in escrow gives flexibility, allowing decisions to take effect upon future events or at specific times.
  • Courts have emphasized that board action via written consent must still satisfy quorum and procedural requirements—a failure to do so can invalidate corporate actions.
  • Section 141(f) enhances corporate governance efficiency but must be carefully followed to avoid litigation or corporate invalidation.

Section 141 F of the Delaware General Corporation Law is an important part of the code of laws affecting business within the state. This particular section addresses the actions of the board of directors, permitting them to provide written consent representing voting decisions to be held in escrow rather than requiring them to all appear in person.

Recent Amendments

In 2014, several amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) were proposed. Most of these amendments addressed the process for mergers and the voting by shareholders and the board of directors. They were effective on August 1, 2014.

Amendments included Section 251(h), which stated that stockholders do not need to vote on certain mergers. Section 204 governed defective corporate acts and issuances of stock which were not authorized properly; such issuances could be validated retroactively by the board of directors.

Section 141(f) also governs issues requiring board of director voting, specifically the way this voting is allowed to be carried out.

Case Law Impact on Section 141(f)

In recent years, Delaware courts have clarified and refined how section 141(f) of the Delaware General Corporation Law operates in practice, particularly concerning procedural safeguards and corporate formalities. One pivotal case, West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Moelis & Co. (2024), involved a stockholder agreement with provisions that attempted to limit board discretion. The Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that certain provisions conflicted with DGCL §§141(a) and 141(c), reinforcing the principle that a board’s statutory authority cannot be overridden by private agreements.

This decision prompted legislative amendments to ensure that corporate governance structures remain flexible yet compliant. It underscored that while Section 141(f) simplifies decision-making, directors must continue to exercise independent judgment consistent with their fiduciary duties and within the statutory framework.

Written Consent of Directors in Escrow

A meeting between board of directors or committee members is not always convenient, and occasionally there are complex or time-sensitive matters that come up between regular meetings. Therefore, Section 141(f) was drafted so that board members could conduct business without holding an in-person meeting.

As of July 1, 2014, an amendment to this section became effective, allowing directors to provide signed written consent that is not effective until a future event takes place. It also allows an individual who is not currently a director, but will be a director at the effective date, to sign the consent document.

This amendment simplifies the process of documenting transactions involving voting by directors, particularly when they need to take place at specific times, in a specific order.

Quorum Requirements and Written Consent Validity

While section 141(f) of the Delaware General Corporation Law facilitates action without a physical meeting, it does not eliminate fundamental governance requirements—most notably, the need for a quorum. A 2020 Delaware Court of Chancery decision illustrates this principle: a sole director attempted to execute unanimous written consent when two board seats were vacant. The court ruled the action invalid because the sole director did not constitute a quorum, even though the consent was otherwise unanimous.

This ruling highlights a critical nuance: written consent cannot bypass the structural requirements set forth in a corporation’s bylaws or the DGCL. Companies must ensure that board composition and quorum standards are satisfied before executing written consents to avoid legal challenges and invalid corporate acts.

Written Consent of Stockholders in Escrow

Similarly, Section 228 addresses voting by stockholders. It permits stockholders to conduct business outside of a regularly scheduled meeting, as long as a minimum number of stockholders are available to sign a written consent. The new amendment is effective July 1, 2014, and allows this written consent to be placed in escrow so that it becomes effective at a future date or when another event takes place.

Strategic Use of Escrow Provisions

Escrowed written consents under Section 141(f) can be a powerful governance tool, particularly for corporations engaged in complex transactions or staged decision-making. Boards frequently use escrowed consents to align corporate actions with external conditions, such as regulatory approvals, financing events, or acquisition milestones.

However, it’s essential to draft these consents precisely. Any ambiguity in the triggering event or effective date can lead to disputes over the consent’s validity. Best practices include:

  • Clearly identifying the triggering condition within the consent document.
  • Specifying the exact date or event upon which the consent becomes effective.
  • Ensuring that all signatories are properly authorized as directors on the effective date.

Summary of Section 141(f)

Section 141(f) of the DGCL contains the following components:

  • Every corporation's business will be managed by a board of directors unless otherwise specified in its certificate of incorporation.
  • The board of directors will consist of the number of people indicated in the corporate bylaws. The bylaws also contain qualifications for directors and the process for their election and removal.
  • A quorum is necessary for the transaction of business; this may be no less than one-third of the total number of members.
  • The board of directors may designate committees and alternate committee members. Committees are permitted to conduct corporation business but are not allowed to amend the certificate of incorporation, with the exception of issues affecting the shares of stock and their distribution.
  • Directors may be divided into different classes which have varying expiration dates for their term of office. They may also be elected to have greater or lesser voting powers than the other directors.
  • Members of the board of directors must perform their duties according to the corporation's records, reports, or statements which are provided by professionals who are competent and trustworthy.
  • Actions by the board of directors may be completed without an official meeting as long as all board or committee members consent in writing to do so; these must be filed along with the boards meeting minutes.
  • The board of directors may hold meetings and have offices outside of the state.
  • The board of directors is allowed to determine directors' compensation.
  • The board of directors may hold a meeting by telephone conferences as long as all members can hear each other. Participating in such a meeting constitutes attendance at the official meeting.
  • A corporation that does not issue stock may have different rules than those provided in this section.
  • Any member of the board of directors may be removed for any reason if the shareholders vote to remove them, except in certain situations.

Governance Best Practices and Compliance Tips

While section 141(f) of the Delaware General Corporation Law provides significant flexibility for corporate governance, directors and counsel should follow best practices to reduce legal risks:

  • Document Everything: Keep clear, dated records of written consents, escrow conditions, and related communications.
  • Verify Authority: Ensure all signatories are properly appointed directors and that a valid quorum exists when action is taken.
  • Review Bylaws: Confirm that corporate bylaws align with Section 141(f) procedures to avoid conflicts.
  • Monitor Case Law: Delaware courts continue to shape the interpretation of Section 141(f); staying informed helps prevent inadvertent violations.
  • Consult Counsel: Because corporate governance disputes can arise from procedural missteps, seeking legal advice early can protect against challenges.

These practices help boards harness the efficiency of written consent while maintaining compliance with Delaware corporate law and safeguarding the validity of their actions.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is Section 141(f) of the Delaware General Corporation Law?
    It allows a corporation’s board of directors to act without a formal meeting if all members consent in writing, providing a streamlined alternative for decision-making.
  2. Can written consent replace a quorum requirement?
    No. Even with unanimous written consent, the board must still meet quorum requirements as defined by the DGCL and the company’s bylaws.
  3. What is the benefit of using escrowed written consent?
    It allows board actions to take effect upon future events or specific conditions, offering strategic flexibility in complex corporate transactions.
  4. Are there risks associated with written consent?
    Yes. Failure to comply with procedural requirements—such as proper quorum, director authority, or documentation—can render board actions invalid.
  5. Can stockholders use similar consent procedures?
    Yes. Under DGCL Section 228, stockholders can act by written consent without a meeting, subject to meeting minimum approval thresholds and procedural rules.

If you need more information or help with section 141 F of the Delaware General Corporation Law, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.