Investor Veto Rights Vetoed by the Court: How Delaware’s Moelis & Co. Decision Changed the Game

In early 2024, a Delaware Court of Chancery ruling sent shock waves through the venture capital and private equity worlds. The case, Moelis & Co. v. Westrock Swayze, LP, challenged a common practice: giving major investors veto rights over key corporate decisions through shareholder agreements. The court didn’t just question this practice—it struck it down, declaring that such veto rights unlawfully restrict a board’s statutory authority to govern the corporation. This decision upended how investors and companies think about control and governance in private deals.

So, what exactly happened in this case, and why does it matter so much? Let’s break down the issues the court faced, the legal rules it applied, how it analyzed the situation, and what the final ruling means for the future of investor protections and corporate governance.

The Background: What Were Moelis’ Veto Rights?

Moelis & Company, a major investor in Westrock Swayze, LP, had negotiated a shareholder agreement that gave it unusually broad veto powers over the company’s board decisions. These veto rights weren’t minor or limited; they covered almost every significant corporate action you can imagine. Moelis could block mergers, acquisitions, the appointment of the CEO, debt issuance, annual budgets, and even litigation settlements. The agreement also guaranteed Moelis seats on the board and the right to have its nominees on important committees.

This kind of arrangement is pretty common in venture capital and private equity deals. Investors want to protect their interests, especially when they hold a sizable stake but don’t control the majority of shares. Veto rights are a way to ensure they have a say in critical decisions. But in this case, the court concluded that Moelis’ veto powers went too far—they effectively stripped the board of its ability to govern.

The Legal Issues: What Did the Court Have to Decide?

The core legal question was whether the shareholder agreement’s veto provisions unlawfully restricted the board’s authority under Delaware law. Delaware’s General Corporation Law (DGCL), specifically Section 141(a), says that the business and affairs of a corporation must be managed by or under the direction of the board of directors, unless the certificate of incorporation says otherwise.

The court had to figure out if the shareholder agreement, which was a private contract, could override this statutory framework by giving a minority investor the power to veto board decisions. This raised a broader question about the limits of contractual freedom in corporate governance. Could investors use private agreements to take control away from the board, or does Delaware law protect the board’s authority as a fundamental principle?

The Court’s Reasoning: Why Were the Veto Rights Invalidated?

Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster, who authored the opinion, took a firm stance. He explained that the shareholder agreement’s veto rights were so extensive that they left the board with no real power. The directors might have had formal authority on paper, but in practice, they needed Moelis’ approval to do almost anything meaningful. This turned the board into a “rubber stamp” rather than a governing body.

The court also pointed out that if investors want veto rights or special control provisions, those rights need to be embedded in the company’s certificate of incorporation—the corporation’s “constitution.” This process involves shareholder approval and transparency. Moelis’ team had tried to sidestep this by putting those rights in a private contract, which the court described as creating a “shadow charter.” This kind of secret governance arrangement is not allowed under Delaware law.

Importantly, the court rejected the argument that such veto rights should be allowed simply because they are common in the market. Just because many deals include these provisions doesn’t make them lawful. The court emphasized that market practice cannot override the law.

What Does This Mean for Investors and Companies?

The ruling sends a clear message: if you want veto rights or other special investor protections that limit board authority, you have to do it the right way. That usually means amending the certificate of incorporation or issuing special classes of stock with voting rights that reflect those protections. Simply putting these terms in a shareholder agreement won’t cut it.

For investors, this means more upfront work and transparency. You can’t just rely on private agreements to control a company behind the scenes. For companies, it means a reaffirmation of the board’s central role in governance. The board must remain the ultimate decision-maker unless shareholders explicitly agree otherwise through formal channels.

Why This Case Matters Beyond Delaware

While this ruling directly applies to Delaware corporations, its impact goes far beyond. Delaware is the legal home to most U.S. public companies and many private ones, so its corporate law rulings often set the tone nationwide. Venture capital and private equity firms will need to rethink how they negotiate governance rights to avoid similar invalidations.

Startups and emerging companies should also take note. As they grow and bring in investors, they must carefully consider how to structure investor protections without undermining the board’s authority. This case serves as a warning that shortcuts in governance can lead to costly legal battles and uncertainty.

Respecting the Board’s Authority

The Moelis & Co. decision is a wake-up call for the investment community. It underscores that while investors have legitimate interests to protect, those interests cannot come at the expense of the board’s statutory role. Delaware law protects the board’s authority as a cornerstone of corporate governance, and private contracts cannot override that.

This ruling doesn’t eliminate investor protections; it just requires that they be structured properly. Investors can still negotiate veto rights and board seats, but they must do so transparently and in accordance with the law. The court’s decision restores balance and clarity, ensuring that corporate governance remains rooted in the principles that have made Delaware the leading jurisdiction for business.

The Moelis & Co. v. Westrock Swayze case is more than just a legal dispute; it’s a turning point in how investor rights and corporate governance intersect. By vetoing the veto rights, the Delaware Court of Chancery reaffirmed the primacy of the board and the importance of following proper legal procedures. For investors, entrepreneurs, and lawyers alike, this case is a reminder to respect the boundaries of corporate law and to build governance structures that are both effective and lawful.

If you’re involved in negotiating shareholder agreements or structuring investor protections, take this ruling seriously. It’s a call to rethink old habits and ensure your deals align with the legal framework. The days of sweeping veto rights hidden in private contracts may be over—but with careful planning, investors can still protect their interests without running afoul of the law.

---

Howard Law is a business and M&A law firm in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area, with additional services in M&A advisory and business brokerage. Howard Law is a law firm based in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area focused on business law, corporate law, mergers & acquisitions, M&A advisor and business brokerage. Handling all business matters from incorporation to acquisition as well as a comprehensive understanding in assisting through mergers and acquisition. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The information on this website is for general and informational purposes only and should not be interpreted to indicate a certain result will occur in your specific legal situation. Information on this website is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.