Company: XOMAP
Filing Date: 2025-04-15
Form Type: DEF 14A
Source: 0001193125-25-081538
Chunk: 51

Company: XOMA Royalty Corp
Filing Date: 2025-04-15
Form: DEF 14A
Chunk 51
---
 provide a clear answer and a Nevada court must make a determination about issues concerning the Company’s governance without clear guidance or precedent, the Company and its stockholders may experience less predictability with respect to whether certain corporate decisions or transactions are proper and/or the extent to which stockholders maintain the right to challenge such decisions or transactions. Recent Nevada Supreme Court cases such as Wynn Resorts v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 399 P.3d 334 (Nev. 2017), Chur v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 458 P.3d 336 (Nev. 2020), and Guzman v. Johnson, 483 P.3d 531 (Nev. 2021), have emphasized application of the plain meaning of the statutes enacted by the Nevada Legislature,**

<div align='center'>34</div>

**which is consistent with the directive of NRS 78.012(3): “The plain meaning of the laws enacted by the Legislature . . . including, without limitation, the fiduciary duties and liability of the directors and officers of a [Nevada] corporation set forth in NRS 78.138 and 78.139, must not be supplanted or modified by laws or judicial decisions from any other jurisdiction.” However, that same statute expressly provides that directors and officers of Nevada corporations “may be informed by the laws and judicial decisions of other jurisdictions and the practices observed by business entities in any such jurisdiction” without such actions constituting or indicating a breach of fiduciary duty. Further, in the absence of Nevada law, Nevada courts have historically looked to Delaware law for guidance. See, e.g., Brown v. Kinross Gold U.S.A., Inc., 531 F. Supp. 2d 1234, 1245 (D. Nev. 2008) (“the Nevada Supreme Court frequently looks to the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Courts of Chancery as persuasive authorities on questions of corporation law”). Thus, it is possible that a Nevada court could reach a similar conclusion as the Delaware Court of Chancery in an area where the two jurisdictions have similar laws, or in an instance where Nevada law is silent but Delaware has addressed the issue.

Also, underwriters and other members of the financial services industry may be less willing and able to assist the Company with capital-raising programs because they might perceive Nevada’s laws as being less flexible or developed than those of Delaware. Certain investment funds, sophisticated investors and brokerage firms may likewise