California Corporations Code §1601, Delaware DGCL §220, and the Marital Fiduciary Overlay
When shareholder inspection rights meet community property law: A comprehensive guide to demanding corporate records
A books-and-records demand letter is one of the most powerful pre-litigation tools available to shareholders, LLC members, directors, and spouses with community-property interests in closely held businesses. Unlike general discovery (which requires filing a lawsuit first), statutory inspection rights let you force disclosure of corporate records before deciding whether to sue—and create fee-shifting leverage if the company stonewalls.
Unlike traditional litigation discovery, books-and-records demands operate under statutory timelines and fee-shifting rules that favor the requesting party when properly invoked. Here's why they work:
| Your Status | Legal Authority | Scope of Access | Key Requirements |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA Corporation Shareholder | Corp. Code § 1601 | Accounting books, records, minutes of shareholders/board/committees | Written demand + proper purpose reasonably related to shareholder interests |
| CA Corporation Director | Corp. Code § 1602 | All books, records, documents, physical properties—virtually absolute right | Director status; reasonable time; can use attorney/agent |
| CA LLC Member | Corp. Code § 17704.10 | Operating agreement, tax returns (6 years), financials, member lists, more | Written demand + purpose reasonably related to member interest |
| DE Corporation Stockholder | DGCL § 220 | Stock ledger, stockholder list, books and records necessary and essential to proper purpose | Written demand under oath + proper purpose + reasonable particularity |
| DE LLC Member | 6 Del. C. § 18-305 | Records necessary and essential to purpose reasonably related to member interest | Written demand + proper purpose; subject to LLC agreement modifications |
| Spouse (Community Interest) | Fam. Code §§ 721, 1101 + Schnabel | Corporate/LLC records where business is community property | Community-property status + marital fiduciary duty enforcement |
If you're both a shareholder/member AND a spouse, you can invoke both corporate inspection statutes and marital fiduciary duties simultaneously. This creates asymmetric leverage:
Scenario: You suspect controlling shareholder is paying themselves excessive compensation, making self-dealing transactions, or wasting corporate assets.
Solution: Demand board minutes, compensation agreements, related-party contracts, and financial statements to evaluate whether fiduciary duties have been breached.
Recognized as proper purpose in CA and DE.
Scenario: You're considering selling shares, negotiating a buyout, or preparing for dissolution. You need financial records to determine fair value.
Solution: Demand tax returns, audited financials, appraisals, capitalization tables, and recent transaction documents.
Classic proper purpose under §1601 and §220.
Scenario: Your spouse controls a business that is community property. You're being denied information and suspect dissipation or hiding of assets.
Solution: Layer Family Code § 721 fiduciary duties onto corporate inspection rights. Cite Schnabel to justify broad access despite not being record shareholder.
Marital + corporate law dual strategy.
Scenario: You believe the company has viable claims against officers/directors for breach of duty, but need records to evaluate before making a demand or filing derivative suit.
Solution: Delaware courts expect you to use § 220 before filing derivative claims. Demand board materials, transaction documents, and communications related to suspected breaches.
"Tools at hand" doctrine in DE.
A books-and-records demand is narrower than litigation discovery but faster and cheaper. You'll get:
The goal is to get enough information to decide whether to sue, settle, or walk away—not to conduct full pre-trial discovery.
California has separate inspection regimes for corporations (Corp. Code §§ 1600-1603) and LLCs (Corp. Code § 17704.10). Both are grounded in the policy that owners and directors need access to business records to protect their interests and enforce fiduciary duties.
Any shareholder of record of a California corporation (or certain foreign corporations—see below).
Written demand stating a purpose reasonably related to the shareholder's interests as a shareholder. Inspection must be permitted at the corporation's principal office during usual business hours.
The California Legislature expanded § 1601 to cover:
This means Delaware and other foreign corporations with significant California presence may be subject to § 1601 demands in addition to their home-state inspection laws.
§ 1601 rights cannot be limited or eliminated by the articles of incorporation, bylaws, or shareholder agreements. These are substantive statutory rights.
Practical guidance on California § 1601 demands
Key Points:
Every director of a California corporation.
All books, records, and documents of every kind, and to inspect the physical properties of the corporation and of its subsidiary corporations, domestic or foreign.
Inspection at any reasonable time. This right is virtually absolute—courts describe it as essential to a director's ability to discharge fiduciary duties.
Director may inspect personally or through an agent or attorney. The right includes making copies and extracts.
California Court of Appeal — Director inspection rights are nearly absolute
Holding: California courts strongly favor a director's § 1602 inspection rights. Even ongoing litigation between the director and the corporation does not automatically eliminate the right. The corporation must show extraordinary circumstances (e.g., bad faith, intent to harm the corporation) to restrict inspection.
Practical Impact: If you are or were a director, your inspection demand is extremely difficult for the company to refuse. Use § 1602 as a foundation for comprehensive document requests.
California Court of Appeal — § 1602 can apply to some foreign corporations
Holding: Under certain circumstances (related to Corp. Code § 2115's "pseudo-foreign corporation" doctrine), California director inspection rights under § 1602 can apply to Delaware and other foreign corporations doing business in California with sufficient California contacts.
Practical Impact: If you're a director of a Delaware corporation that has California operations, shareholders, or executive offices, you may be able to invoke § 1602 in addition to Delaware rights.
Any member or manager of a California LLC, and certain transferees.
§ 17704.10 provides access to:
Reasonable request for purposes reasonably related to the member's or manager's interest. The LLC must provide the information in writing within a reasonable time.
Operating agreements cannot unreasonably restrict inspection rights under § 17704.10. While some procedural requirements (timing, format, cost-shifting) can be imposed, the substantive right to access information cannot be eliminated.
California LLC member inspection rights under § 17704.10 are generally broader and easier to enforce than corporate shareholder rights under § 1601:
Practical guidance on trade secret objections to LLC inspection demands
Key Principles:
If a corporation refuses a valid § 1601 or § 1602 demand, the shareholder/director can file a petition in Superior Court to compel inspection. The court may award:
For LLCs, enforcement is similar: member files an action in Superior Court for declaratory relief and/or specific performance. Courts routinely order production and may impose per-day penalties for unjustified refusal under § 17704.10.
California Supreme Court — Spousal access to corporate records in dissolution
Facts: Wife in marital dissolution sought discovery of closely held corporation's financial records where husband was controlling shareholder. Corporation resisted, arguing she was not a shareholder of record and corporate formalities should shield the records.
Holding: Non-record spouse in dissolution is entitled to broad discovery of corporate records where the business is community property. The spouse's community-property interest justifies access to detailed financial information, and corporate separate legal existence does not override marital disclosure obligations.
Key Quote: "The corporation is a legal fiction; it does not transform the managing spouse's obligations to the marital community."
Application to Demand Letters: Even if you're not a record shareholder, cite Schnabel + Family Code § 721 to argue that as a community co-owner, you have rights to corporate information equivalent to or exceeding statutory shareholder rights.
If you are a spouse with a community-property interest in a California corporation or LLC, your demand letter should invoke:
This dual-hook strategy makes refusal extremely risky for the controlling spouse: they face both corporate contempt/fee-shifting and Family Code breach penalties.
Delaware is the most common state of incorporation for businesses with outside investors or sophisticated structures. Delaware's inspection statutes—DGCL § 220 (corporations) and 6 Del. C. § 18-305 (LLCs)—are narrower but faster than California's regime, with well-developed case law and strict procedural requirements.
Any stockholder of a Delaware corporation (no minimum ownership threshold).
To invoke § 220, the stockholder must:
Delaware recently tightened § 220 by clarifying that stockholders are entitled only to documents "necessary and essential" to accomplish the stated proper purpose. This has particularly narrowed access to emails and electronic communications, which are now harder to obtain unless board-level materials are insufficient.
Analysis of recent Delaware § 220 amendments and case law
Key Developments:
Practice trends and activist investor use of § 220
Observations:
Delaware courts repeatedly emphasize that stockholders must use the tools at hand—specifically § 220 inspection rights—before filing derivative suits or other plenary litigation. Judges will ask:
"Did you send a § 220 demand? If not, why not? If so, what did you learn, and why wasn't that enough?"
Practical takeaway: For Delaware entities, a well-drafted § 220 demand letter is not optional—it's a procedural prerequisite to being taken seriously by the Court of Chancery.
Any member or manager of a Delaware LLC.
Records that are reasonably related to the member's or manager's interest and necessary and essential to accomplish a proper purpose.
Written demand stating the purpose. Unlike § 220, § 18-305 does not require the demand to be under oath, but the "reasonably related" and "necessary and essential" standards still apply.
Delaware LLC operating agreements can impose "reasonable standards" on inspection rights (e.g., timing, format, cost-shifting, confidentiality conditions) but cannot eliminate the substantive right entirely.
Court of Chancery practice on LLC books-and-records demands
Key Points:
Defense-side perspective on resisting overbroad LLC demands
Defense Strategies (What to Expect if You're Demanding):
Counter-Strategy: Anticipate these objections in your demand letter by clearly tying each document category to a recognized proper purpose and offering to accept reasonable confidentiality conditions.
If a Delaware corporation or LLC refuses a valid § 220 or § 18-305 demand, the stockholder/member can file a summary proceeding in the Delaware Court of Chancery. These cases are:
Delaware courts have imposed fee-shifting where corporations:
Sidley "Two Cautionary Tales": Recent cases show Delaware courts awarding substantial fees to stockholders when corporations stonewall legitimate § 220 demands, treating obstruction as sanctionable conduct.
Delaware's books-and-records regime is narrower than California's (harder to get emails, stricter "necessary and essential" test) but faster and more predictable:
One of the most common complications in books-and-records demands is determining which state's law governs inspection rights when the entity is incorporated in one state (often Delaware) but has significant contacts with California (shareholders, operations, executive offices). The answer depends on the internal-affairs doctrine and specific statutory exceptions.
The internal-affairs doctrine is a conflicts-of-law principle holding that matters of corporate governance and internal structure—including shareholder inspection rights, director fiduciary duties, and derivative litigation—are governed by the law of the state of incorporation.
Unless a specific exception applies (see below), your demand letter should be structured under the laws of the state where the entity is incorporated:
The 2019 amendments to § 1601 extended California shareholder inspection rights to:
Practical impact: If a Delaware corporation has its headquarters in California, a California shareholder can invoke both § 1601 (CA) and § 220 (DE) in a demand letter, arguing entitlement under either statute.
California Corp. Code § 2115 applies California corporate governance rules to foreign corporations that have substantial California contacts:
In Havlicek v. Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services, a California court applied § 1602 director inspection rights to a Delaware corporation meeting these criteria.
Practice tip: If the entity is a "pseudo-foreign" corporation under § 2115, cite both California and Delaware law, and argue California law provides at least as broad inspection rights.
California Court of Appeal — California director inspection rights applied to Delaware corporation
Holding: Where a Delaware corporation had sufficient California contacts to trigger § 2115, California's director inspection rights under § 1602 applied, giving the California director broad access to corporate records.
Limitations: § 2115 is controversial and narrowly applied. Delaware and other states have pushed back against it. Use cautiously and only where California contacts are overwhelming.
While the internal-affairs doctrine governs corporate governance, it does not override California community-property law for spouses. If you are a California-domiciled spouse with a community-property interest in a Delaware entity:
Result: Your demand letter can cite Delaware § 220 for corporate inspection and California § 721/Schnabel for marital fiduciary enforcement—dual hooks that create overwhelming pressure to disclose.
Scenario: You're married to the CEO/majority stockholder of a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco. You own 10% of the stock (community property acquired during marriage). You suspect self-dealing.
Your demand letter should invoke:
Why this works: Even if Delaware law narrowly limits your § 220 rights, California marital law independently requires disclosure. The company/controlling spouse faces liability under either regime.
| Entity Type | Your Status | Primary Law to Cite | Secondary/Alternative Arguments |
|---|---|---|---|
| California Corporation | Shareholder | Corp. Code § 1601 | If also spouse: add Fam. Code §§ 721, 1101 |
| California Corporation | Director | Corp. Code § 1602 | Nearly absolute; cite Fowler for strength |
| California LLC | Member | Corp. Code § 17704.10 | Broader than corporate rights; cite tax return access |
| Delaware Corporation | Stockholder | DGCL § 220 | If CA principal office: add § 1601; if spouse: add Fam. Code |
| Delaware Corporation | Stockholder + Spouse | DGCL § 220 AND Fam. Code §§ 721/1101 | Dual strategy; cite Schnabel for marital overlay |
| Delaware LLC | Member | 6 Del. C. § 18-305 | Check LLC agreement for procedural restrictions; if spouse: add Fam. Code |
| Foreign Corp (non-CA, non-DE) | Shareholder | Inspect home-state law | If § 2115 applies (rare): argue California overlay |
When in doubt, plead in the alternative. Your demand letter can state:
"This demand is made pursuant to (1) Delaware General Corporation Law § 220, as [Company] is a Delaware corporation; (2) California Corporations Code § 1601, as [Company] maintains its principal executive office in California; and (3) California Family Code §§ 721 and 1101, as I am the spouse of the controlling stockholder with a community-property interest in [Company]."
This approach maximizes coverage and forces the company to respond to the strongest legal theory, not just the one it prefers to litigate.
A well-drafted books-and-records demand letter must satisfy statutory formalities (especially for Delaware § 220) while also creating a record for future fee-shifting, spoliation arguments, and settlement leverage. Below is a component-by-component breakdown.
Identify the sender, the recipient, and the legal basis for the demand. For Delaware demands, this section must also include the verification under oath.
For DGCL § 220 demands, include a sworn statement:
"I, [Name], declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Delaware that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief."
Cite the specific statutes and case law that give you inspection rights. This educates the recipient and establishes that you understand the legal framework.
"This demand is made pursuant to California Corporations Code § 1601, which provides that any shareholder has the right, upon written demand, to inspect and copy the corporation's accounting books and records and minutes of shareholder, board, and committee proceedings, for a purpose reasonably related to the shareholder's interests."
"This demand is made pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220, which provides that any stockholder may inspect the corporation's books and records for a proper purpose upon written demand under oath. I am a stockholder of record holding [X] shares of [Company] common stock, as evidenced by the attached [stock certificate / brokerage statement]."
"In addition, I am the spouse of [Controlling Shareholder], and [Company] is community property under California Family Code § 760. This demand also constitutes enforcement of marital fiduciary duties under Family Code § 721 and notice of potential claims under Family Code § 1101. As the California Supreme Court held in Schnabel v. Superior Court, a spouse with a community-property interest in a corporation is entitled to broad access to corporate records to protect that interest."
Satisfy the "proper purpose" requirement by clearly articulating why you need the documents and tying that purpose to recognized categories.
"My purposes for this demand are proper and reasonably related to my interests as a stockholder and spouse, specifically: (1) investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, and mismanagement by [Controlling Shareholder] and other officers; (2) evaluating the financial condition and valuation of [Company]; (3) determining whether grounds exist for direct or derivative claims under Delaware and California law; and (4) protecting my community-property interest in [Company] under California Family Code."
Delaware courts require you to describe your purpose with reasonable particularity, meaning you must provide enough factual basis to show your purpose is not pretextual. Example:
"I have reason to believe that [Controlling Shareholder] has: (a) caused [Company] to pay him compensation totaling $[X] over the past three years, while shareholder distributions have ceased entirely; (b) entered into a lease agreement between [Company] and an entity he controls, [Related Entity], for office space at above-market rates; and (c) failed to provide financial statements or tax returns despite repeated requests. These facts give rise to credible concerns about self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty, which I seek to investigate through inspection of the records described below."
Specify the documents you're requesting, tied to your stated purposes and tailored to statutory scope.
For California Corporations (§ 1601):
For California LLCs (§ 17704.10):
For Delaware § 220:
Delaware courts require you to show how each document category is necessary and essential to your purpose. Example:
"Board minutes related to the [Related Party] lease are necessary and essential to determine whether the transaction was approved, whether conflicts of interest were disclosed, and whether the company obtained independent valuation or fairness opinions."
Trigger document preservation obligations and create a record for spoliation sanctions if records are destroyed.
"This demand letter constitutes formal notice that litigation concerning the matters discussed herein is reasonably foreseeable. [Company] and all officers, directors, and controlling shareholders are under a legal duty to preserve all documents, records, and electronically stored information related to the topics described above, including but not limited to emails, text messages, financial records, board materials, and transaction documents. Any destruction, alteration, or concealment of such materials may result in spoliation sanctions, adverse-inference instructions, and independent claims under California and Delaware law."
Preempt trade secret and confidentiality objections by offering to sign an NDA or accept protective conditions.
"To the extent [Company] has legitimate concerns about trade secrets or confidential business information, I am willing to execute a reasonable non-disclosure agreement and to accept limitations on the use of inspected materials solely for the purposes stated herein. However, such concerns do not justify wholesale denial of inspection rights."
Set clear timelines and reference enforcement mechanisms and fee-shifting.
"Please provide a written response to this demand within 15 days, confirming your intent to comply and proposing a schedule for inspection and production. I expect full compliance within 30 days of the date of this letter. Unjustified refusal to permit inspection will result in enforcement proceedings in [California Superior Court / Delaware Court of Chancery], where I will seek an order compelling inspection, costs, and attorney fees. Additionally, under California Family Code § 1101, refusal to disclose may result in remedies including 50%-100% of any concealed assets plus mandatory attorney-fee awards."
Why dual delivery: Email provides immediate notice; certified mail creates formal proof of delivery and timing for enforcement proceedings.
Books-and-records demands require technical precision (especially for Delaware § 220) and strategic judgment about how to frame purposes, tailor document requests, and layer marital/corporate claims. These services provide expert drafting for California and Delaware entities.
What's Included:
Best for: Straightforward inspection demands where you have shareholder/member status and need statutory compliance.
📧 Request Basic PackageEverything in Basic, PLUS:
Best for: High-stakes situations where you anticipate resistance and want to be ready to file immediately.
📧 Request Premium PackageGenerally yes for corporate/LLC statutory rights. California § 1601 and Delaware § 220 require shareholder of record status. Beneficial owners who are not on the stock ledger cannot directly invoke these statutes. However:
It varies by jurisdiction and cooperation level:
Delaware is generally faster when litigation is necessary.
California corporations can require on-site inspection at their principal office under § 1601. You may have to travel to inspect and make your own copies. However, you can negotiate for:
If they refuse reasonable accommodations, that strengthens your enforcement case.
Yes, if reasonable. Courts recognize that companies can impose reasonable confidentiality conditions to protect trade secrets and proprietary information, including:
However, confidentiality conditions cannot be used to deny inspection entirely. If the company refuses production even with an NDA, that's unjustified obstruction.
Email owner@terms.law with:
You'll receive an intake questionnaire within 24 hours.