Opinion ID: 2258949
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inspection of Stockholder List

Text: Under Section 220(c), when a stockholder complies with the statutory requirements governing the form and manner of making a demand to obtain a stockholder list, the corporation bears the burden of proving that the demand is for an improper purpose. [30] This Court reviews de novo the question of proper purpose when a stockholder seeks to inspect a stockholder list. [31] U.S. Die made a written demand for copies of defendant's most recent stockholder list to communicate with the shareholders of Security with respect to Security's business, particularly the failed merger with Mid Am., Inc. In his deposition and at trial, however, Slyman admitted that he had no idea what he would do with such a list. It is a sufficient defense for a corporation to show that a stockholder list was sought from idle curiosity. [32] We find that Security First has met its burden of proving that the plaintiff's demand to inspect the stockholder list was not for a proper purpose. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Chancery's decision to grant plaintiff's request to inspect defendant's stockholder list. We note, however, that U.S. Die is not precluded from making a new demand and, if necessary, filing a new proceeding to obtain the stockholder list. Neither the doctrine of res judicata [33] nor the principle of the law of the case [34] has any application to a subsequent demand by U.S. Die to inspect the stockholder list. If U.S. Die has a bona fide purpose to inspect the list and if there has been a material change of circumstances since its February 1995 demand, U.S. Die may be able to establish its entitlement to inspect and copy the list of stockholders of Security First upon reasonable terms and conditions. [35]