On July 29, 2026, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a landmark decision in Drakes Landing Associates, L.P. v. Tilden Park Capital Management, L.P., dismissing with prejudice a stockholder complaint against the directors of MPower Financing, PBC. The court’s ruling, the first of its kind to examine the fiduciary duties of Public Benefit Corporation (PBC) directors in a change-of-control scenario, found that the plaintiffs failed to overcome the statutory safe harbor provisions designed to protect directors. This decision offers significant clarity on the unique balancing act PBC directors undertake, particularly when faced with transactions that could fundamentally alter the corporation’s control and its public benefit mission.
The dispute originated from a complex financing arrangement at MPower Financing, PBC, a Delaware-based entity dedicated to providing student loans to international students. The transaction saw two of the company’s principal lenders, Tilden Park Capital Management, L.P., and King Street Capital Management, L.P. (collectively referred to as "the Funds"), gain controlling interest in the company. The plaintiffs, alleging a breach of fiduciary duties, contended that a special committee, despite being composed of independent and disinterested directors, failed to properly evaluate the transaction. They further asserted that the Funds aided and abetted this alleged breach. However, the Court of Chancery determined that the plaintiffs had not presented sufficient facts to rebut the protections afforded to PBC directors under Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) Section 365(b). Crucially, the court also addressed the applicability of the Revlon duties—the obligation for directors of traditional corporations to maximize shareholder value in a sale or change of control—to PBCs. It concluded that this specific duty does not extend to PBC directors, while leaving open the possibility that a modified form of enhanced scrutiny might still be applicable.
Legal Framework: Balancing Interests and the PBC Safe Harbor
Understanding the court’s decision necessitates an examination of the foundational legal principles governing Public Benefit Corporations in Delaware. DGCL Section 365(a) outlines the core fiduciary duty of PBC directors. It mandates that these directors must strike a delicate balance between three distinct sets of interests: the pecuniary interests of the stockholders, the best interests of those materially affected by the corporation’s conduct, and the specific public benefit or benefits articulated in the company’s certificate of incorporation. This "Balancing Requirement" is the cornerstone of the PBC model, differentiating it from traditional for-profit corporations.
To provide a degree of protection for directors navigating this complex balancing act, DGCL Section 365(b) establishes a statutory safe harbor. This provision stipulates that a PBC director’s fiduciary duties are considered satisfied with respect to a decision that implicates the Balancing Requirement, provided that the director’s decision meets three criteria: it must be informed, disinterested, and not "such that no person of ordinary, sound judgment would approve." This safe harbor is designed to encourage directors to make decisions in good faith without undue fear of litigation, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of their responsibilities.
In parallel, Delaware law has long recognized the Revlon duties, typically invoked when the board of directors of a traditional corporation decides to sell the company or pursue a change of control. Revlon has been interpreted in two primary ways: either as imposing a specific standard of conduct on directors, obligating them to actively seek the highest possible sale price for the company, or as a standard of judicial review, signaling that courts will apply a heightened level of scrutiny to directors’ decisions in such circumstances.
Prior to the Drakes Landing decision, Delaware courts had not definitively ruled on how Revlon duties, if at all, applied to the directors of PBCs. This ambiguity had led to various interpretations among legal practitioners. Some believed that the PBC’s statutory mandate to balance mission and profit served as a built-in defense against hostile takeovers. This perspective suggested that PBC directors might be permitted, or even compelled, to reject an offer that maximizes shareholder value if that offer compromised the company’s stated public benefit mission.
The Case of MPower Financing, PBC: A Financial Crossroads
MPower Financing, PBC, established to address the financial needs of international students pursuing higher education, found itself in a precarious financial situation in early 2025. The company was described as being in a "short-term financial pinch," prompting a significant financing proposal from its two largest lenders, Tilden Park and King Street. These Funds collectively held approximately $108.9 million in MPower’s debt and controlled about 25.5% of its common stock. Tilden Park also had the right to designate two of the company’s nine board members.
The Funds’ proposed financing transaction included a crucial element: the right to convert their existing and newly injected debt into equity at a price of $2.25 per share. This valuation represented a substantial discount compared to MPower’s previous financing round in 2021, where shares were valued at a significantly higher undisclosed price. If this conversion were to occur, the Funds would collectively own an overwhelming 85% of MPower Financing, PBC, effectively representing a change of control.
In response to this proposed transaction, MPower’s board of directors formed a special committee comprised of independent and disinterested directors. This committee was tasked with evaluating the merits of the financing deal. The special committee engaged independent legal counsel and retained a financial advisor to assist in its review. The committee also instructed its financial advisor to explore alternative transactions, although the extent of this market canvass and whether any other concrete offers materialized remained unclear from the court’s findings. Ultimately, the special committee recommended approval of the transaction. Notably, shareholder approval was not sought for this transaction. The plaintiffs alleged that both MPower’s internal counsel and its CEO had advocated for a shareholder vote, but they did not claim that such a vote was contractually or statutorily mandated by the company’s governing documents.
The plaintiffs’ core allegations revolved around the perceived inadequacy of the special committee’s process. They claimed that the financial advisor did not conduct a sufficiently robust search for alternative financing options. Furthermore, they asserted that the Tilden Park designees on the board exerted undue influence over the special committee, thereby compromising its independence and ability to act solely in the best interests of all stakeholders. These allegations formed the basis of their claim that the special committee had breached its fiduciary duties, particularly within the context of a change-of-control scenario.
The defendants, in their motion to dismiss, argued that the plaintiffs’ complaint was legally flawed on several grounds. They contended that any claim predicated on Revlon duties should fail outright, as the singular focus on maximizing shareholder value is fundamentally incompatible with the broader mandate of PBC directors. Additionally, they asserted that the special committee’s approval of the transaction was shielded by the statutory safe harbor provided in DGCL Section 365(b).
The Court’s Ruling: Upholding the Safe Harbor and Redefining PBC Duties
The Delaware Court of Chancery ultimately sided with the defendants, granting their motion to dismiss. The court’s decision was grounded in two primary analyses: the inapplicability of Revlon duties and the robust protection offered by the DGCL Section 365(b) safe harbor.
Revlon Analysis: A Distinct Path for PBCs
The court meticulously dissected the Revlon duties, distinguishing between its role as a standard of conduct and as a standard of review. Regarding Revlon as a standard of conduct, the court found its exclusive emphasis on maximizing shareholder wealth to be "inconsistent" with the statutory mandate of Section 365(a), which requires PBC directors to balance a wider array of interests. This marks a significant clarification: PBC directors are not bound by the same singular imperative to sell at the highest price as their counterparts in traditional corporations.
However, the court acknowledged that aspects of enhanced scrutiny, a hallmark of Revlon review, might still be relevant to PBCs. It introduced the concept of "PBC enhanced scrutiny," suggesting that judicial review of PBC director decisions, particularly in change-of-control contexts, might involve a heightened level of examination. Despite this acknowledgment, the court did not definitively rule on whether "PBC enhanced scrutiny" would have applied to the facts of this case. This was because its decision on the safe harbor provision rendered that question moot for the present complaint.
The Dispositive Safe Harbor: A High Bar for Plaintiffs
The dispositive aspect of the court’s ruling hinged on DGCL Section 365(b). The burden rested squarely on the plaintiffs to present facts that would allow for a reasonable inference that the statutory safe harbor was not met. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy this burden across all three prongs of the safe harbor test.
-
Disinterestedness: The plaintiffs conceded that all three members of the special committee were indeed disinterested and independent. This removed a critical avenue for challenging the committee’s impartiality.
-
Informed Decision-Making: The court’s analysis here was particularly stringent. It reasoned that for a plaintiff to successfully challenge a PBC director’s decision as uninformed, they must plead facts demonstrating an unreasonable failure to become informed about all three of the interests mandated by Section 365(a): the pecuniary interests of stockholders, the interests of those materially affected by the corporation’s conduct, and the specific public benefit. The plaintiffs’ allegations, the court found, focused almost exclusively on the perceived inadequacy of the market canvass, an argument that pertained solely to the stockholders’ pecuniary interests. They offered no specific allegations regarding the board’s consideration of the interests of other materially affected parties or the corporation’s public benefit mission. While the plaintiffs attempted to argue in their answering brief that "no balancing of interests" had occurred, the court rejected this argument. It cited the principle that a complaint cannot be amended through briefing and found the assertion to be entirely conclusory. The court deemed this belated and unsupported assertion insufficient to overcome the safe harbor, regardless of whether a business judgment rule or enhanced scrutiny standard of review were applied.
-
Waste: The third prong of the safe harbor requires plaintiffs to prove corporate waste—a transaction so fundamentally unfair that no reasonable person would ever approve it. The court noted that this is an exceedingly high legal threshold to meet, and the plaintiffs had not even attempted to argue that the facts presented constituted corporate waste.
Broader Implications and Key Takeaways
The Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in Drakes Landing Associates, L.P. v. Tilden Park Capital Management, L.P. carries significant implications for the governance of Public Benefit Corporations and the landscape of corporate law.
For Directors of PBCs:
The ruling provides a degree of reassurance for directors navigating the complex duties inherent in PBC governance. The confirmation that the Revlon duty to maximize shareholder value does not apply offers welcome clarity. The emphasis on the statutory safe harbor in Section 365(b) underscores the importance of a well-documented, informed, and disinterested decision-making process. Directors must be able to demonstrate a thoughtful consideration of all three prongs of the Balancing Requirement, not just the financial returns for shareholders. A robust record of diligence, engagement with external advisors, and a clear articulation of how the decision serves the corporation’s overall mission will be crucial in any future litigation.
For Investors and Stockholders in PBCs:
Investors seeking to understand their rights and recourse in PBCs will need to adjust their expectations. The Revlon standard of maximizing shareholder value is not the operative principle. Instead, investors must appreciate the PBC’s dual mandate. Litigation challenging PBC director decisions will likely require a more nuanced approach, focusing on a failure to adequately balance all stakeholder interests or a clear breach of the informed, disinterested, and reasonable approval criteria of the safe harbor. The bar for challenging decisions based on a perceived undervaluation of shareholder interests will be higher, requiring proof that the directors’ actions were not just suboptimal from a pure profit perspective, but fundamentally unreasonable or uninformed regarding the broader scope of their duties.
Impact on PBC Governance and Corporate Strategy:
This decision reinforces the unique nature of the PBC form of incorporation. It validates the idea that PBCs can, and indeed must, prioritize their public benefit missions even when faced with financially advantageous offers that might conflict with that mission. This could lead to increased adoption of the PBC structure by companies prioritizing social or environmental impact alongside profit. It also suggests that PBCs may be better positioned to resist unwanted takeovers if the acquiring entity does not align with the PBC’s stated public benefit.
The ruling also highlights the critical importance of clear and comprehensive governing documents. While the court did not explicitly rule on the necessity of shareholder votes in all change-of-control scenarios for PBCs, the plaintiffs’ lack of a clear contractual or statutory basis for such a vote weakened their position. PBCs should ensure their certificates of incorporation and bylaws clearly delineate the approval processes for significant corporate actions.
Future Legal Developments:
While the Drakes Landing decision provides substantial guidance, certain questions remain open. The precise contours of "PBC enhanced scrutiny" as a standard of review are yet to be fully defined. Future cases will likely explore how courts will apply this standard when the safe harbor is challenged or found inapplicable. The ongoing evolution of PBC jurisprudence in Delaware will continue to shape the governance landscape for these increasingly prominent corporate entities.
In essence, the Drakes Landing decision serves as a foundational clarification of PBC director fiduciary duties in a change-of-control context. It reaffirms the distinct purpose of the PBC structure, emphasizing the balancing of diverse stakeholder interests over the singular pursuit of shareholder wealth maximization, and underscores the protective shield offered by the statutory safe harbor for directors who act diligently and in good faith.
