Opinion ID: 2156563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Parent Corporation's Production Duty

Text: That threshold determination, however, did not conclude the analysis required by the statute. The parent corporation's statutory obligation to produce the subsidiary's documents is qualified. That obligation exists only to the extent that the subsidiary documents are in the parent's actual possession and control or to the extent that the subsidiary's documents that are in the subsidiary's possession and control can be obtained through the parent's exercise of control over the subsidiary. Thus, section 220(b) provides: (b) Any stockholder . . . shall, upon written demand under oath stating the purpose thereof, have the right . . . to inspect for any proper purpose, and to make copies and extracts from: 1. . . . . 2. A subsidiary's books and records, to the extent that: a. The corporation has actual possession and control of such records of such subsidiary; or b. The corporation could obtain such records through the exercise of control over such subsidiary . . . . [15] The Court of Chancery did not determine that Weinstein was able to exercise control over the affairs of Mays for purposes of causing Mays to produce its documents that Weinstein did not already possess. Indeed, the Court of Chancery determined to the contrary. It recognized that as a practical matter Weinstein may not be able to cause Mays to produce the documents without taking extraordinary steps . . . [and that] [a]lthough Weinstein may not be able to, I think the Court [of Chancery] has power to do so by issuing another process.