The Great Corporate Migration: Why Companies Are Fleeing Delaware’s Courts

For decades, Delaware reigned as the undisputed champion of corporate America. Over 65% of Fortune 500 companies and half of all publicly traded U.S. firms called it home, lured by its predictable legal system, tax perks, and business-friendly reputation. But today, a growing exodus dubbed “DExit” (Delaware Exit) is seeing giants like Tesla, Roblox, and Dropbox abandon the state for Nevada, Texas, and beyond. The reason? A perfect storm of controversial court rulings, shifting liability standards, and rival states rolling out red carpets for disillusioned corporations. Let’s unpack how Delaware lost its crown—and where the corporate world is heading next.

Why Delaware Became America’s Corporate Capital

Delaware’s rise wasn’t accidental. The state crafted its laws to attract businesses, starting with the 1899 General Corporation Law, which offered unparalleled flexibility in structuring companies. By the 20th century, Delaware had cemented its status as a corporate haven through three key advantages:

1. The Court of Chancery: This 200-year-old institution uses judges—not juries—to resolve complex corporate disputes swiftly. Its rulings set precedents that lawyers nationwide rely on, creating predictability for businesses.

   
   

2. Tax Benefits: Delaware imposes no income tax on companies operating outside the state, no sales tax on intangible assets (like intellectual property), and no inheritance tax on shares owned by non-residents.

   
   

3. Privacy and Flexibility: Directors’ names aren’t publicly disclosed, and companies can adopt slimmed-down governance structures, making Delaware ideal for startups and multinationals alike.

   
   

These perks turned Delaware into a one-stop shop for incorporation, with legal clarity that reassured investors. But recently, that clarity has started to blur.

The Court Cases That Sparked a Corporate Revolt

Delaware’s Chancery Court has long been praised for its expertise, but a series of 2024 rulings left executives feeling exposed. Judges began scrutinizing board decisions more aggressively, particularly in cases involving conflicts of interest or controlling shareholders. Three cases epitomize the shift:

1. The Elon Musk Pay Package Voided

   In early 2024, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick nullified Musk’s $56 billion Tesla compensation plan, ruling that the board failed to prove the pay was “entirely fair” to shareholders. Musk’s close ties to board members—including his brother—created an “unfathomable” conflict, the court found. The decision sent shock waves through corporate America, with Musk relocating Tesla and SpaceX to Texas and urging others to “incorporate in Nevada or Texas if you prefer shareholders to decide matters.”

   
   

2. Aiding-and-Abetting Liability Narrowed

   While the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s decision to hold a third-party buyer liable for aiding a breach of fiduciary duty, the mere fact that such cases reached trial unsettled businesses. Directors grew wary of being second-guessed for routine decisions.

   
   

3. Controlled Company Reincorporation Scrutiny

   In a pending appeal, the Chancery Court subjected TripAdvisor’s reincorporation from Nevada to Delaware to the “entire fairness” standard—a high bar requiring proof that the move was both procedurally and substantively fair to shareholders. This raised concerns that even routine corporate actions could face heightened judicial skepticism.

These rulings signaled a broader trend: Delaware courts were no longer rubber-stamping board decisions, especially when insiders stood to benefit. For executives accustomed to deference, the new reality felt like a betrayal.

The “DExit” Wave: Who’s Leaving and Where They’re Going

The backlash has been swift. High-profile companies are fleeing to states offering stronger protections for directors and simpler compliance rules:

• Tesla and SpaceX (→ Texas): Musk’s companies led the charge, citing Texas’s lighter regulatory touch and alignment with “shareholder democracy.”

  
  

• Roblox (→ Nevada): The gaming giant praised Nevada’s “predictable legal framework” and stronger management protections.

  
  

• Dropbox and TripAdvisor (→ Nevada): Both companies highlighted Nevada’s liability shields and streamlined governance rules.

  
  

• AMC Networks and Madison Square Garden Entertainment (→ Nevada): These firms cited cost savings and reduced litigation risks.

  
  

Nevada has emerged as the top alternative, thanks to its lack of corporate income tax, minimal disclosure requirements, and laws that prioritize directors’ autonomy over shareholder activism. Texas, meanwhile, leverages its no-income-tax policy and Musk’s celebrity endorsement to attract tech firms.

Why Nevada and Texas Are Winning

Delaware’s rivals aren’t just capitalizing on frustration—they’re actively courting defectors with tailored reforms:

• Nevada’s “Director-Friendly” Laws:

  • No personal liability: Officers and directors are shielded from monetary damages unless they commit intentional misconduct.

  • Privacy: Shareholder names and corporate records stay confidential.

  • Simpler Compliance: Annual reporting requirements are minimal compared to Delaware’s.

    
    

• Texas’s “Light-Touch” Approach:

  • No corporate income tax: A major draw for profit-heavy firms.

  • Political Alignment: Conservative governance resonates with companies wary of ESG-related shareholder demands.

    
    

Delaware is fighting back, passing a 2025 law to insulate boards from lawsuits over conflicts of interest (dubbed the “Billionaire’s Bill” by critics)

. But for many, the damage is done.

What This Means for Corporate America

The DExit movement isn’t just about geography—it’s a power struggle over who controls corporations: shareholders or management. Delaware’s courts have traditionally balanced these interests, but recent rulings tilted toward shareholder activism. Nevada and Texas, by contrast, empower boards to operate with minimal interference.

For startups, the calculus is changing. While Delaware still offers unparalleled legal predictability, newer firms in tech and biotech are opting for Nevada’s liability shields. Established companies, meanwhile, face pressure to reincorporate if their leadership prioritizes autonomy over precedent.

The Future of Corporate Law

Delaware isn’t going anywhere—it still handles 90% of U.S. IPOs and retains a vast body of case law. But its dominance is no longer guaranteed. If the exodus continues, we could see a fragmented corporate landscape where companies choose states based on their risk tolerance: Delaware for those seeking investor confidence, Nevada for those prioritizing management control, and Texas for those chasing tax savings and star power.

One thing’s clear: The era of Delaware’s unquestioned supremacy is over. In its place, a new corporate map is emerging—one where boardrooms, not courtrooms, hold the most sway.

This shift isn’t merely bureaucratic paperwork. It’s a reflection of how law, leadership, and liability intersect in modern business—and a reminder that even the most entrenched systems can crumble when trust erodes. For Delaware, the message is stark: Adapt or lose your crown. For corporations, the power to choose has never been more consequential.

---

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.