Statute Annotations › Delaware › 8 Del. Code Ann. § 151

8 Del. Code Ann. § 151

Preferred stock and voting rights: the cases that interpreted this section

Jurisdiction
Delaware
Case notes
15
Cited in passing
24
Citing cases indexed
12
Case dates
1974–2026
Screened through
2026-03-17
Courts' treatment: live
No reviewed case has held this section invalid, preempted, superseded or repealed.
This reflects what the reviewed cases said, not legislative action: a later amendment or repeal by the legislature would not appear here unless a reviewed case discussed it.

39 citing cases reviewed: 15 interpreted the section (annotated below), 24 cited it only in passing. Cases filed after 2026-03-17 may not have been reviewed yet.

Have a situation under 8 Del. Code Ann. § 151?

These notes show how courts have ruled. Ask about your specific facts and see which of these rulings apply, with citations you can check.

Shareholder rights and restrictions in the certificate of incorporation

Section 151(a) requires shareholder rights and any qualifications, limitations, or restrictions affecting those rights to be stated in the corporation’s certificate of incorporation.

Oliveira v. Quartet Merger Corp. and Pangaea Logistics Solutions Ltd · filed 2016-10-13(a)

However, we agree with the district court that such an interpretation contravenes the text of § 151(a), which makes it clear that requirements affecting the rights of shareholders must be included in the corporation’s certificate of incorporation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 151(a) permits a charter to make a share’s voting power depend on the identity of its holder.

Colon v. Bumble, Inc. · filed 2023-09-12(a)

As authorized by Section 151(a), the formula makes the quantum of voting power that a share carries dependent on a fact ascertainable outside of the certificate of incorporation, namely the identity of the owner.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 151(a) authorizes class-specific stock powers and rights that are expressed in the corporate charter.

In re Fox Corporation/Snap Inc. Section 242 Litigation · filed 2024-01-17(a)

The word “powers” in Section 242(b)(2) refers to specific class powers ... under Section 151(a), made express in the corporate charter as required by Section 102, and not to general powers incidental to stock ownership.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 151(a) authorizes a stock class’s powers, preferences, and special rights, which must be expressed in the corporate charter.

In re Fox Corporation/Snap Inc. Section 242 Litigation · filed 2024-01-25(a)

Those sections work together with Section 242(b)(2) to limit the “powers, preferences, or special rights” of a class to those authorized by Section 151(a) and expressed in the charter under Sections 151(a) and 102(a)(4).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 151(a) permits a stock restriction stated in the certificate of incorporation before the shares are issued.

United Atlantic Ventures, LLC v. TMTG Sub Inc. f/k/a Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. · filed 2025-09-02(a)

Because the Lock-Up was in the Second Amended Charter when UAV received its restricted stock, Count II is dismissed.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 151(a) requires preferred stock anti-dilution preferences to be expressly stated in the certificate of incorporation or an amendment.

Cecilian Partners, Inc. v. Company Fifteen, LLC · filed 2026-03-17(a)

Section 151(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) requires that “designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights, and qualifications, limitations or restrictions thereof[] . . . shall be stated and expressed in the certificate of incorporation or of any amendment thereto.” 8 Del. C. § 151(a). ... It is undisputed that the operative certificate of incorporation—the Cecilian DE Amended COI—does not express an Anti-Dilution Preference for the Class A Preferred Stock. The analysis should end here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Preferred-stock dividends

Section 151(c) permits preferred-stock dividends to be set at a specified rate and paid in preference to other classes, and it does not guarantee junior shareholders a dividend when no assets remain after the preferred dividend.

Jacobs v. Federal Housing Finance Agency · filed 2018-11-14(c)

Delaware’s corporate law entitles “holders of preferred or special stock . . . to receive dividends at such rates . . . as shall be stated in the certificate of incorporation or in the [board] resolution or resolutions providing for the issue of such stock.” Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 151(c) (2017). ... But the Third Amendment does specify a rate: 100%. ... That same provision of Delaware law authorizes dividends “payable in preference to, or in such relation to, the dividends payable on any other class . . . of stock.” Id. ... Indeed, § 151 contemplates that preferred shareholders’ dividends may absorb all funds and leave none for junior shareholders: once preferred dividends have been paid out “to the extent of the preference, . . . a dividend on the remaining class or classes or series of stock may then be paid out of the remaining assets of the corporation available for dividends.” Id. (emphases added). So common shareholders are not guaranteed dividends. They may receive the dividends only if the board approves, only if preferred shareholders are paid, and only if assets remain available for dividends. Here, after paying the Treasury’s dividend, no assets remain. So even if Delaware law applies, the Third Amendment complies with it.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 151(c) does not require every preferred share to carry a right to receive dividends; any dividend right is governed by the certificate or issuing resolution.

Shintom Co., Ltd. v. Audiovox Corp. · filed 2005-10-31(c)

We have concluded that the Delaware statutory scheme imposes no such requirement, and that it is legally possible for an otherwise bona fide preferred stock of a Delaware corporation to have no right to receive dividends under ... any ... circumstance.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 151(a) permits preferred-stock rights and limitations to be created by the certificate of incorporation or a certificate of designation.

Matulich v. Aegis Communications Group, Inc. · filed 2008-01-15(a)

Accordingly, the special rights and limitations of preferred stock are created by the corporate charter or a certificate of designation, which acts as an amendment to a certificate of incorporation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 151(a) makes the certificate of incorporation the controlling source for stockholder-right restrictions, so a later proxy cannot add a delivery requirement absent incorporation into the certificate.

Oliveira v. Quartet Merger Corp. · filed 2015-09-07(a)

As a result, the Court, too, looks only to the Amended Certificate to ascertain whether Oliveira properly exercised his conversion rights.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 151(c) does not prohibit a senior preferred dividend calculated quarterly from company performance merely because it may prevent other stock classes from receiving dividends.

In Re: Fannie mae/freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations · filed 2018-09-28(c)

Without any case law in support of their theory, the Court sees no basis to hold that this is not a “preference”, not “in relation to” other classes, or not paid at a “rate.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 151(a) requires preferred stock rights and limitations that differ from common stock to be expressly stated; silence leaves the default rights intact.

Cedarview Opportunities Master Fund, L.P. v. Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. · filed 2018-08-27(a)

If a certificate of incorporation or a certificate of designations “is silent on a particular issue, then as to that issue the preferred stock and the common stock have the same rights,”194 i.e., the “default rights remain unaltered.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Stock classes, series, and issuance

Section 151(a) authorizes stock provisions that allow directors to issue additional series of shares.

Tankersley v. Albright · filed 1974-02-05(a)

There can be no doubt as to the validity of the proposed amendments under Delaware law as such provisions are expressly authorized by the corporation laws of that state, see 8 Del.C. § 151(a) and § 242(a)(3) (increase of authorized stock, reclassification, and authorization of directors to issue additional series of stock), ... and have been adopted by a number of large corporations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 151(a) requires the certificate of incorporation or an amendment to authorize a class or series of stock before the corporation issues it.

In re CertiSign Holding, Inc. · filed 2015-08-31(a)

Importantly however, the Amended Certificate, which authorized the issuance of those shares, was not filed with the Delaware Secretary of State until April 1, 2005. Therefore, the Stock Issuances were invalid.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 151 applies to the issuance of all stock, including founding stock.

Garfield v. Boxed, Inc. · filed 2022-12-27(a)

All stock, including founding stock, must also be issued in accordance with DGCL Section 151.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
24 more cases cited this section only in passing

These cases mention the section without interpreting it (a string cite, a footnote, background). Listed so you can see the full citation record, not just the annotated rulings.

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp., the court cited § 151 only as an analogy and summarized Delaware authority while construing Maine statutes; it did not interpret or apply § 151 itself. opinion →
Highland Crusader Offshore Partners, L.P. v. Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P., the court cited § 151(g) only as background for its discussion of the Motient charter and board flexibility. Its actual holding construed the charter’s phrase “non-voting stock” and did not decide the meaning, requirements, coverage, or application of § 151(g). opinion →
Kansas Heart Hospital, L.L.C. v. Idbeis, the court mentions § 151(b) only as Delaware’s counterpart to the Kansas redemption statute and relies on the Kansas statutes to decide the validity of the bylaw; it does not independently construe or apply Delaware law. opinion →
Ellerin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance, the court cited the section as an example of state law distinguishing stock classes from series while interpreting federal securities law. opinion →
In Re Farm Industries, Inc., the court recounts the parties' positions about Section 151 and assumes a defect in the certificate while considering equitable relief. opinion →
Koppers Co., Inc. v. American Exp. Co., the court treats compliance with § 151 as nondispositive and assesses the preferred stock under federal margin regulations. opinion →
Warner Commun. v. CHRIS-CRAFT INDUSTRIES, the court cites § 151 as background on where preferred stock rights are set out while deciding whether Warner’s certificate grants a vote on the merger. opinion →
Akcess Pacific Group LLC v. Winstar Communications Inc., the court cites Section 151 to identify how CVUSA filed its preferred-stock designation, then resolves the claim under New York contract law. opinion →
Anderson v. Dobson, the court cites § 151 as part of a range of corporate stock provisions while deciding whether shares were validly issued under other provisions. opinion →
In re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation, the court cites § 151(a) as an analogy while deciding whether a partnership merger triggered voting requirements in the partnership agreement. opinion →
Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company v. Audax Health Solutions, Inc., the court mentions § 151(a) as an analogy while deciding the merger consideration requirements of § 251. opinion →
Keith A. Fotta, the court mentions Section 151 only in the plaintiffs’ allegations and does not decide a claim under it. opinion →
The Frederick Hsu Living Trust v. ODN Holding Corporation, the court cites Section 151(a) in a footnote to explain preferred stock while addressing fiduciary duties. opinion →
Nguyen v. View, Inc., the court cites Section 151 as background to its Section 204 ratification analysis and describes an earlier court’s finding of a Section 151 violation. opinion →
Manti Holdings, LLC v. Authentix Acquisition Company, Inc., the court mentions § 151(a) as part of a challenge to the stockholders agreement that it had rejected in an earlier opinion. opinion →
Applied Energetics, Inc. v. Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum PLLC, the court reports Plaintiff’s argument about an opinion letter and compliance with sections 151–154 without deciding Section 151’s rules. opinion →
Myers v. Academy Securities, Inc., the court cites § 151 only in a quotation from another case while addressing an alleged unwritten stock subscription. opinion →
West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Moelis & Company, the court mentions Section 151(a) to explain a statutory change while deciding an issue under Section 141(a). opinion →
McRitchie v. Zuckerberg, the court cites the section to describe preferred stock while addressing directors’ fiduciary duties. opinion →
Wagner v. BRP Group, Inc., the court mentions Section 151(a) to explain a later statutory amendment while deciding challenges under Sections 141(a) and 242. opinion →
Vivint Solar, Inc. v. Lundberg, the court cites Section 151 among statutes supporting equity awards while deciding which limitations period applies to the counterclaims. opinion →
Vivint Solar, Inc. v. Lundberg, the court cites Section 151 as background while deciding which statute of limitations applies to the restricted stock unit counterclaims. opinion →
Seavitt v. N-Able, Inc., the court cites Section 151 to support its analysis of whether a charter can incorporate provisions from an outside agreement. opinion →
Abramowski v. Nuvei Corporation, the court decided a claim under § 251(h); § 151(h)(5) appears only in a citation accompanying the plaintiffs’ argument. opinion →

Which of these rulings fit your facts?

Describe your situation under 8 Del. Code Ann. § 151. Ezel checks it against the cases on this page and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace