Involved With a Delaware Corporation? Three Major Changes to Know

What Senate Bill 21 Means for Delaware Corporations

On March 25, 2025, Delaware Governor Matt Meyer signed Senate Bill 21 into law, effecting significant changes to the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (DGCL), the statutory law governing Delaware corporations. With over two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies domiciled in Delaware, it continues to be the preferred state of incorporation for businesses drawn to its modern statutory law, renowned Court of Chancery, and developed case law.

Consequently, below are three major takeaways for businesses incorporated in Delaware or individuals involved with a Delaware corporation—as a director, officer, or stockholder—here are three major takeaways:

1. Procedural Safe Harbor Cleansing Related Party Transactions

Under Delaware corporate law, related party transactions involving a fiduciary, such as where a director of a corporation stands on both sides of a transaction, are potentially subject to the entire fairness standard of review. This onerous standard of reviewing a fiduciary’s actions in certain conflicted transactions places the burden on the fiduciary to prove that the self-dealing transaction was fair—both in terms of the process (fair dealing) and substantive (fair price)—given corporate law theory that the fiduciary’s interests may not be aligned with maximizing stockholder value.

Senate Bill 21 establishes a safe harbor pursuant to Section 144 of DGCL for these conflicted transactions (other than take-private transactions) if the transaction is approved by either:

  • A majority of the disinterested members of the board or
  • A majority of the votes are cast by the disinterested stockholders—in each case, subject to certain additional requirements. Consequently, if transactional planners and corporations follow the new procedural safe harbor when entering certain related party transactions, they greatly minimize the likelihood of a successful challenge of any breach of fiduciary duty claim against the corporation’s board.

2. Limiting Who Qualifies as a Controlling Stockholder

Prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 21, whether a stockholder was a “controlling stockholder” and was therefore subject to certain rules under Delaware corporate law, was not set forth in DGCL. Rather, Delaware case law helped transactional planners to determine if a stockholder would be treated as such.

Senate Bill 21 codifies the definition of this term in Section 144 of DGCL. Under the revised Section 144, a “controlling stockholder” is a stockholder who:

  • Controls a majority in voting power of the outstanding stock entitled to vote generally in the election of directors;
  • Has the right to control the election of directors who control the board; or
  • Has the functional equivalent of majority control by possessing at least one-third in stockholder voting power and power to exercise managerial authority over the business of the corporation. This update provides transactional planners and corporations with clear guidelines over who qualifies as a controlling stockholder.

3. Narrowing Stockholder Information Rights

Over the past years, many Delaware corporations have been subject to an increasing number of “Section 220 demands” and related litigation that is often expensive for corporations to handle. Section 220 of DGCL provides stockholders with a statutory right to inspect a corporation’s books and records if the stockholder satisfies certain requirements.

Senate Bill 21 amends Section 220 of DGCL by narrowing what books and records of a corporation the stockholder is generally entitled to review after satisfying certain requirements. Specifically, the term “books and records,” as defined in Section 220 of DGCL, is now limited to certain organizational and financial documents of the corporation, including its annual financial statements for the preceding three years, board minutes, stockholder communication, and other formal corporate documents. Additionally, a stockholder’s demand must describe with “reasonable particularity” its purpose and requested books and records, and such books and records must be “specifically related” to the proper purpose.

In summary, Senate Bill 21’s amendments to DGCL give transactional planners and corporations additional clarity over cleansing conflicted transactions, who qualifies as a controlling stockholder, and the books and records a stockholder may access under Section 220. If you have questions about how the amendments to DGCL impact your Delaware corporation’s actions, reach out to a member of Varnum’s Securities and Capital Markets Practice Team.

 

Understanding Partial Redemptions for Startup Founders

Understanding Partial Redemptions for Startup Founders

Being a startup founder is hard. Among other things, startup founders face long hours, resource constraints, intense pressure, and the need for constant adaptation and resilience in the face of uncertainty. Founders face all these tasks while also being severely underpaid, adding to the list of trials one of the more challenging: personal financial pressure.

As a result of such financial pressure, and the frightening uncertainty of success, it is not unusual for founders to consider a partial redemption or liquidity event in which they sell a portion of their shares to the company or directly to an investor, typically as part of a proposed financing round. Such a redemption provides cash to the founder in exchange for a reduced level of ownership and risk in the company. A partial redemption may be accomplished through a cash purchase directly from the company or by using a portion of the proceeds from a financing round. A partial redemption can be a strategic move with both advantages and potential drawbacks. Understanding the nuances of this transaction is crucial for founders and investors alike.

Why Consider Partial Redemption?

Several factors might drive a company to pursue a partial redemption of the founder’s shares:

  • Liquidity: Founders may seek to cash out a portion of their equity for personal or financial reasons.
  • Tax Planning: Partial redemption can offer tax advantages, especially when structured carefully.
  • Corporate Governance: Reducing the concentration of ownership can improve corporate governance and decision-making.
  • Employee Incentive Plans: Repurchased shares can be used to fund employee stock option plans or other incentive programs.

Key Considerations

Before embarking on a partial redemption, several factors must be carefully evaluated:

  • Valuation: Accurately valuing the company’s shares is essential for determining a fair redemption price. The company should review the current 409A valuation and consider the potential impact the partial redemption will have on future 409A valuations.
  • Tax Implications: The tax consequences for both the company and the founder can vary significantly based on factors such as the founder’s holding period, the redemption structure and the company’s tax status. In general, a shareholder may exclude 100% of gain from the redemption of Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) for federal income tax purposes if certain issuance date and holding period requirements are met. However, a founder’s redemption may be disqualified from QSBS tax treatment.
  • Corporate Structure: The company’s legal structure and governing documents may impose limitations or restrictions on share redemptions.
  • Financial Impact: Repurchasing shares can reduce the company’s cash reserves and potentially affect its financial performance.
  • Shareholder Agreement/Investment Documents: Existing shareholder agreements or investment documents may contain provisions related to share transfers, redemptions, rights of first refusal, right of co-sale or tag-along rights. The partial redemption may trigger rights for existing shareholders who may wish to participate in the sale.

Potential Drawbacks

While partial redemption can offer benefits, it also carries potential risks:

  • Dilution of Ownership: If the redemption is not carefully structured, it can lead to dilution of ownership for existing shareholders.
  • Company’s QSBS: Impact on Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) for existing shares as well as future purchases.
  • Market Perception: A significant share repurchase can sometimes be interpreted negatively by the market.
  • Loss of Talent: Founders may feel less motivated or committed to the company after a partial redemption.

The decision to redeem a founder’s shares is complex. Early exits and partial redemptions can provide liquidity and diversification for founders while allowing them to maintain some ownership in the company. However, it is important to consider the potential risks, structuring options and tax implications before the company and founder engage in such a redemption. It is advisable to reach out to your Varnum attorney to review any proposed partial redemption documentation.

FinCEN Eliminates Corporate Transparency Act’s Reporting Obligations for U.S. Persons

FinCEN Eliminates Corporate Transparency Act's Reporting Obligations for U.S. Persons

On March 21, 2025, the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released an interim final rule (Interim Rule) that broadly eliminates Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) for all U.S. reporting companies and all U.S. beneficial owners of foreign reporting companies. Under the Interim Rule, which FinCEN is implementing immediately, only companies created under foreign law and registered to do business in the U.S. will be required to submit BOI reports (unless otherwise exempt), and only foreign beneficial owners of such nonexempt foreign entities will be reportable.

Based on FinCEN’s estimates supporting the original BOI Rule (Original Rule), exempting all U.S. reporting companies shrinks the compliance universe by 99.8 percent.

How Did We Get Here?

The CTA whiplash, playing out in courts since early December, took a sharp turn by the government over the last month. On February 18, FinCEN restored the reporting obligations under the Original Rule after the last nationwide injunction against the CTA had been lifted at the government’s request. FinCEN gave reporting companies a grace period for compliance that would have ended, for most companies, on March 21.

Then, on February 27, FinCEN announced that it was suspending CTA enforcement pending a formal extension of the compliance deadlines beyond March 21. On March 2, the U.S. Treasury took this a step further, announcing the total suspension of CTA enforcement against U.S. persons and a rulemaking process “that will narrow the scope of the [BOI] rule to foreign reporting companies only.”

The Interim Rule puts this policy change into effect. The primary legal basis for this “narrowing” is a provision of the CTA that provides a regulatory process by which the U.S. Treasury may, subject to several statutory requirements, create additional exemptions from the BOI reporting obligations. In a court filing made after the March 2 announcement, the government elaborated on the policy change by noting the U.S. Treasury “intends to focus on foreign entities that could engage in illicit transactions from abroad.”

Policy Change or a New CTA?

Congress enacted the CTA to combat money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and other serious financial crimes by requiring tens of millions of private companies operating in the U.S. to identify their beneficial owners and disclose to FinCEN personal information about such companies and beneficial owners. FinCEN stores this information in a secure, nonpublic electronic warehouse for law enforcement purposes. Yet, FinCEN pegs the estimated number of reporting companies subject to the Interim Rule at less than 12,000 annually. Supporters of the CTA point to this fact, and findings made by Congress that bad actors conceal their ownership of entities in the U.S. to facilitate illicit transactions, in their criticism of the policy change. We could see judicial scrutiny of the Interim Rule if a plaintiff with legal standing decides to bring a case.

FinCEN is soliciting comments from the public on the Interim Rule, noting it “will assess the exemptions [in the Interim Rule], as appropriate, in light of those comments and intends to issue a final rule this year.” Among other unanswered questions, the Interim Rule does not address how BOI received by FinCEN from U.S. companies and their beneficial owners will be handled – nearly 16 million reports under the Original Rule were submitted to FinCEN prior to March 21.

Expect the CTA Saga to Continue

In addition to potential legal challenges to the Interim Rule, numerous cases challenging the CTA remain on court dockets and will continue to work their way through the legal process. Separately, some state legislatures have shown interest in developing their own versions of the CTA (which could be impacted by the ultimate resolution of the pending cases against the CTA), with New York having adopted the New York LLC Transparency Act (applicable to limited liability companies formed or registered to do business in New York and set to take effect January 1, 2026).

Varnum’s CTA Taskforce continues to monitor these developments and will provide updates as they become available. For further background on the CTA, please refer to Varnum’s CTA Resource Center.

DOL Expands Fiduciary Breach Correction Options

DOL Expands Fiduciary Breach Correction Options

The United States Department of Labor (DOL) has updated its procedures for correcting certain fiduciary violations. This expansion allows employers to self-correct a broader range of errors, aligning the program more closely with the IRS’s recently updated correction procedures. If certain conditions are met, the new guidance allows for self-correcting some of the most common fiduciary violations, such as late contributions, late loan repayments, and inadvertent loan failures.

The DOL has long provided plan fiduciaries the option to use its Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program (VFCP) to address various fiduciary violations. The program requires plan sponsors to both correct the fiduciary violation and submit an application to the DOL for approval. The core elements of the VFCP program remain unchanged. However, the DOL has expanded the program to include a self-correction component (SCC), which will allow plan sponsors to correct fiduciary violations without submitting an application to the DOL. Employers can begin using the new SCC provisions on March 17, 2025.

When Can SCC Be Used?

SCC is available for three fiduciary violations: failure to transmit contributions timely, failure to transmit loan repayments timely, and some inadvertent loan failures. Covered inadvertent loan failures include errors that could be self-corrected with the IRS under its Employee Plan Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS), which includes the most common loan failures.

What Are The Requirements?

To use the SCC program, several requirements must be satisfied:

  • If the violation caused lost earnings, those lost earnings must be calculated using the DOL’s lost earnings calculator and be less than $100.
  • Late contributions or loan payments must be made to the plan within 180 days following when the employer withheld the amounts.
  • Employers must complete and maintain a copy of the SCC Record Retention Checklist. Given the importance of complete and proper documentation, employers should seek assistance from legal counsel and other plan service providers.
  • Employers must file electronically with the DOL as part of the correction process. Under the traditional VFCP process, the DOL would issue a no-action letter. Under the SCC program, a no-action letter will not be issued, but an acknowledgment will be provided after the electronic filing is made.

Any correction amounts and costs related to the SCC process must be paid from the employer’s general assets, not from plan assets.

If you need to correct your retirement plan or believe there may be an issue, please contact a member of Varnum’s Employee Benefits Practice Team for further information and assistance with the correction process.

New Michigan Law Strengthens Legal Protections for Assisted Reproduction

New Michigan Law Strengthens Legal Protections for Assisted Reproduction

The Assisted Reproduction and Surrogacy Parentage Act (ARSPA), also known as the Michigan Family Protection Act, enhances legal protections for families using assisted reproductive technology. Effective April 2, 2025, this legislation updates parentage laws to account for the use of assisted reproductive technology, providing greater clarity and legal security.

Legal Parentage for Children Conceived Through Assisted Reproduction

One of the law’s most impactful components is Part 2, which addresses the parentage of children conceived through assisted reproduction without surrogacy. The impact of the law on surrogacy is covered in a previous advisory. The law defines assisted reproduction as “a method of causing pregnancy through means other than by sexual intercourse” and includes in vitro fertilization (IVF), gamete donation (i.e., sperm, egg, and embryo), artificial insemination, and other assisted reproductive technologies.

Before the new law, non-biological parents in Michigan had to undergo a lengthy and costly stepparent adoption process to establish legal parental rights. Now, intended parents who conceive a child through assisted reproduction can petition the court for a judgment of parentage, legally establishing them as a child’s parent and granting them all rights and responsibilities associated with being a legal parent.

This change removes unnecessary barriers for many families, including non-biological mothers in same-sex couples who conceive using sperm donors and heterosexual couples using sperm, egg, or embryo donors due to infertility.

Estate Planning Considerations

With ARSPA in effect, individuals who have children or grandchildren through assisted reproduction should review their estate planning documents to ensure their children and grandchildren are included. Many estate plans define “child” to include adopted children but may not explicitly cover non-biological children conceived through assisted reproduction. Updating these documents can help avoid potential legal complications and ensure all children and grandchildren are treated as intended.  

How We Can Help

If you are considering or have already conceived a child through assisted reproduction, securing your parental rights is essential. Varnum’s Family Law Practice Team can help you navigate this new legal process and obtain a judgment of parentage if necessary. Our Estate Planning Practice Team can also review and update your estate documents to ensure they accurately reflect your family.

Design-Code Laws: The Future of Children’s Privacy or White Noise?

Design-Code Laws: The Future of Children's Privacy or White Noise?

In recent weeks, there has been significant buzz around the progression of legislation aimed at restricting minors’ use of social media. This trend has been ongoing for years but continues to face resistance. This is largely due to strong arguments that all-out bans on social media use not only infringe on a minor’s First Amendment rights but, in many cases, also create an environment that allows for the violation of that minor’s privacy.

Although companies subject to these laws must be wary of the potential ramifications and challenges if such legislation is enacted, these concerns should be integrated into product development rather than driving business decisions.

Design-Code Laws

A parallel trend emerging in children’s privacy is an influx in legislation aimed at mandating companies to proactively consider the best interest of minors as they design their websites (Design-Code Laws). These Design-Code Laws would require companies to implement and maintain controls to minimize harms that minors could face using their offerings.

At the federal level, although not exclusively a Design-Code Law, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) included similar elements, and like those proposed bills, placed the responsibility on covered platforms to protect children from potential harms arising from their offerings. Specifically, KOSA introduced the concept of “duty of care,” wherein covered platforms would be required to act in the best interests of minors under 18 and protect them from online harms. Additionally, KOSA would require covered platforms to adhere to multiple design requirements, including enabling default safeguard settings for minors and providing parents with tools to manage and monitor their children’s online activity. Although the bill has seemed to slow as supporters try to account for prospective challenges in each subsequent draft of the law, the bill remains active and has received renewed support from members of the current administration.

At the state level, there is more activity around Design-Code Laws, with both California and Maryland enacting legislation. California’s law, which was enacted in 2022, has yet to go into effect and continues to face opposition largely centered around the law’s alleged violation of the First Amendment. Similarly, Maryland’s 2024 law is currently being challenged. Nonetheless, seven other states (Illinois, Nebraska, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, South Carolina and Vermont) have introduced similar Design-Code Laws, each taking into consideration challenges that other states have faced and attempting to further tailor the language to withstand those challenges while still addressing the core issue of protecting minors online.

Why Does This Matter?

While opposition to laws banning social media use for minors has demonstrated success in the bright line rule restricting social media use, Design-Code Laws not only have stronger support, but they will also likely continue to evolve to withstand challenges over time. Although it’s unclear exactly where the Design-Code Laws will end up (which states will enact them, which will withstand challenges and what the core elements of the laws that withstand challenges will be), the following trends are clear:

  • There is a desire to regulate how companies collect data from or target their offerings to minors in order to protect this audience. The scope of the Design-Code Laws often does not stop at social media companies, rather, the law is intended to regulate those companies that provide an online offering that is likely to be accessed by children under the age of 18. Given the nature and accessibility of the web, many more companies will be within the scope of this law than the hotly contested laws banning social media use.
  • These laws bring the issue of conducting data privacy impact assessments (DPIAs) to the forefront. Already mandated by various state and international data protection laws, DPIA requirements compel companies to establish processes to proactively identify, assess and mitigate risks associated with processing personal information. Companies dealing with minor data in these jurisdictions will need to:
    • Create a DPIA process if they do not have one.
    • Build in additional time in their product development cycle to conduct a DPIA and address the findings.
    • Consider how to treat product roll-out in jurisdictions that do not have the same stringent requirements as those that have implemented Design-Code Laws.

As attention to children’s privacy continues to escalate, particularly on the state level, companies must continue to be vigilant and proactive in how they address these concerns. Although the enactment of these laws may seem far off with continued challenges, the emerging trends are clear. Proactively creating processes will mitigate the effects these laws may have on existing offerings and will also allow a company to slowly build out processes that are both effective and minimize the burden on the business.

Varnum’s Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Team is closely monitoring these legislative developments and stands ready to guide clients through the complexities of the new regulations. Should these laws be enacted, businesses will need to swiftly adapt to avoid legal risks and ensure they are effectively protecting the rights and safety of younger users.

Two Employer-Friendly ACA Changes

Two Employer-Friendly ACA Changes

Two recent developments make significant changes to Affordable Care Act (ACA) compliance, both effective immediately and offering important benefits for employers. 

Providing Forms 1095 to Employees

Since ACA was first implemented, employers have been required to report their offers of health care coverage to employees by filing Form 1095-B or 1095-C with the IRS and providing a copy of the form to employees.

Beginning with the 2024 tax year, which the reporting forms were set to be distributed in early 2025, employers are no longer required to automatically provide these forms to employees, provided two requirements are met. First, employers must notify employees that the employer will no longer automatically provide Form 1095, including a statement saying employees may request a copy and instructions on how to do so. Second, employers must provide a copy of Form 1095 to any employee who requests it, within 30 days of the request.

Note that employers must still file Form 1094 and Form 1095 with the IRS; this new rule simply relieves the responsibility to provide a copy to employees. Employers who wish to take advantage of the new rule should continue to coordinate with their service providers to ensure that Forms 1095 are prepared in time for filing to the IRS, and available to provide to employees upon request. This change may help employers save on the cost and administrative responsibility of sending the forms to each employee.

ACA Penalty Statute of Limitations 

Congress has also established a new six-year statute of limitations for employer penalty assessments under the ACA. While this may seem lengthy, especially considering the common three-year statute of limitations that applies to many tax assessments, the IRS had previously taken the position that there was no statute of limitations because Forms 1094 and 1095 were not tax returns.

This change is particularly important due to frequent delays between an employer’s alleged failure to comply with ACA requirements and the IRS’s notification of a proposed penalty assessment. This delay could be multiple years, meaning that if an employer had a systematic issue regarding its offers of coverage or reporting, penalties could be assessed for several years before the employer was notified that a change was necessary for compliance. Especially in corporate transactions, this change will help provide clarity and limit exposure for ACA compliance. 

If you have questions or want assistance with ACA compliance, contact a member of our Employee Benefits Practice Team

The Impact of AI Regulations on Insurtech

The Impact of AI Regulations on Insurtech

Insurtech is steeped in artificial intelligence (AI), leveraging the technology to improve insurance marketing, sales, underwriting, claims processing, fraud detection and more. Insurtech companies are likely only scratching the surface of what is possible in these areas. In parallel, the regulation of AI is expected to create additional legal considerations at each step of the design, deployment and operation of AI systems working in these contexts. 

Legal Considerations and AI Exposure

As with data privacy regulations, the answer to the question “Which AI laws apply?” is highly fact-specific and often dependent on the model’s exposure or data input. Applicable laws tend to trigger based on the types of data or location of the individuals whose data is leveraged in training the models rather than the location of the designer or deployer. As a result, unless a model’s use is strictly narrowed to a single jurisdiction, there is likely to be exposure to several overlapping regulations (in addition to data privacy concerns) impacting the design and deployment of an Insurtech AI model. 

Managing Regulatory Risk in AI Design

Given this complexity, the breadth of an Insurtech AI model’s exposure can be an important threshold design consideration. Companies should adequately assess the level of risk from the perspective of limiting unnecessary regulatory oversight or creating the potential for regulatory liabilities, such as penalties or fines. For instance, an Insurtech company leveraging AI should consider if the model in question is intended to be used for domestic insurance matters only and if there is value in leveraging data related to international data subjects. Taking steps to ensure that the model has no exposure to international data subjects can limit the application of extraterritorial, international laws governing AI and minimize the potential risk of leveraging an AI solution. On the other hand, if exposure to the broadest possible data is desirable from an operations standpoint, for instance, to augment training data, companies need to be aware of the legal ramifications of such decisions before making them. 

Recent State-Level AI Legislation

In 2024, several U.S. states passed AI laws governing the technology’s use, several of which can impact Insurtech developers and deployers. Notably, state-level AI bills are not uniform. These laws range from comprehensive regulatory frameworks, such as Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act, to narrower disclosure-based laws such as California’s AB 2013, which will require AI developers to publicly post documentation detailing their model’s training data. Several additional bills relating to AI regulation are already pending in 2025, including:

  • Massachusetts’ HD 3750: Would require health insurers to disclose the AI use including, but not limited to, in the claims review process and submit annual reports regarding training sets as well as an attestation regarding bias minimization.
  • Virginia’s HB 2094: Known as the High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act, would require the implementation of a risk management policy and program for “high-risk artificial intelligence systems,” defined to include “any artificial intelligence system that is specifically intended to autonomously make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision (subject to certain exceptions).
  • Illinois’ HB 3506: Among other things, this bill would require developers to publish risk assessment reports every 90 days and to complete annual third-party audits.

The Growing Importance of Compliance

With the federal government’s evident step back in pursuing an overarching AI regulation, businesses can expect state authorities to take the lead in AI regulation and enforcement. Given the broad and often consequential use of AI in the Insurtech context, and the expectation that this use will only increase over time given its utility, businesses in this space are advised to keep a close watch on current and pending AI laws to ensure compliance. Non-compliance can raise exposure not only to state regulators tasked with enforcing these regulations but also potentially to direct consumer lawsuits. As noted in our prior advisory, being well-positioned for compliance is also imperative for the market from a transactional perspective. 

The Insurtech space is growing in parallel with the expanding patchwork of U.S. AI regulations. Prudent growth in the industry requires awareness of the associated legal dynamics, including emerging regulatory concepts across the nation. Varnum’s Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Team continues to monitor these developments and assess their impact on the Insurtech industry to help your business stay one step ahead.