KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Technologies Inc.
Delaware Supreme Court
203 A.3d 738 (2019)
- Written by Matthew Celestin, JD
Facts
KT4 Partners LLC (KT4) (plaintiff) was a stockholder of Palantir Technologies Incorporated (Palantir) (defendant), a privately held technology company. In 2016, Palantir amended its investors’ rights agreement, severely restricting KT4’s rights. KT4 sent a demand letter to Palantir pursuant to Delaware law, requesting to inspect Palantir’s books and records, including emails, to investigate suspected wrongdoing related to the amendments. Palantir rejected the demand. KT4 filed a summary books and records action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to compel Palantir to comply with the demand. The chancery court held that KT4 had a proper purpose for its demand and ordered Palantir to produce certain books and records. However, although the books and records lacked information related to the 2016 amendments, the court denied KT4’s request to inspect Palantir’s emails. KT4 appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court. KT4 presented evidence that Palantir conducted much of its corporate business, including business related to the 2016 amendments, via email. Therefore, KT4 argued that Palantir’s emails were likely to contain evidence of the alleged wrongdoing and were thus essential to KT4’s investigative purpose.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Strine, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.