Dilution and Diversion Claims "Travel" with Securities: Standing Lost Upon Sale Even for Direct Fiduciary Claims — Commentary on The Yosaki Trust v. Weber (Del. 2025)

Dilution and Diversion Claims “Travel” with Securities: Standing Lost Upon Sale Even for Direct Fiduciary Claims
Commentary on The Yosaki Trust v. Teresa S. Weber, No. 157, 2025 (Del. Supr. Dec. 15, 2025)

I. Introduction

This Delaware Supreme Court decision sits at the intersection of three increasingly important themes in Delaware jurisprudence:

  • The distinction between direct and derivative fiduciary duty claims;
  • The effect of selling one’s equity on standing to sue; and
  • How those doctrines apply to modern, complex deal structures such as de‑SPAC “Up‑C” transactions.

In The Yosaki Trust v. Weber, the Court affirms the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of fiduciary duty and related claims brought by pre‑transaction investors in BioTE Holdings, LLC. The central holding is not about whether the claims are direct or derivative, but about standing: even assuming the claims were direct, the Trusts lost the right to pursue them when they voluntarily converted their interests into public company stock and then sold that stock.

The Court does so by leaning heavily on its earlier decision in Urdan v. WR Capital Partners, LLC, and by clarifying that:

  • Dilution claims “travel” with the securities and are not personal to the claimant; and
  • The same is true of “diversion” claims (i.e., claims that insiders diverted value or consideration to themselves in a challenged transaction).

The case is especially significant for SPAC-related litigation. Many SPAC transactions, like this one, involve high redemption rates and allegedly value‑destructive terms for legacy investors. Yosaki sends a clear message: if investors complain of unfair dilution or diversion in such a transaction but nevertheless convert and sell their securities, they generally will not be able to sue later, regardless of whether they attempt to characterize their claims as “direct.”

II. Background and Transactional Context

A. The Parties and the Business

BioTE is a hormone therapy training and services enterprise founded in 2012 by Dr. Gary S. Donovitz. Its principal operating company, BioTE Medical, LLC (“Medical”), is wholly owned by BioTE Holdings, LLC (“Holdings”).

The plaintiffs, The Yosaki Trust and The Mioko Trust (the “Trusts”), each held equity in Holdings. Before the challenged transaction:

  • Each Trust owned approximately 2.8% of Holdings.

The key individual and institutional defendants include:

  • Teresa S. Weber – CEO of Medical;
  • Marc D. Beer – Executive Chairman of Medical’s Board of Managers;
  • Mary Elizabeth Conlon – Vice President of Business Development and General Counsel of both Medical and Holdings;
  • Haymaker Sponsor III LLC and its CEO Steven J. Heyer – the SPAC sponsor side (the “Haymaker Defendants”); and
  • Cooley LLP – outside counsel to BioTE.

Collectively, Weber, Beer, and Conlon are referred to as the “Insider Defendants.” The Trusts alleged that these fiduciaries orchestrated a value‑shifting transaction to their own advantage.

B. The De‑SPAC Up‑C Transaction

The transaction at issue is a de‑SPAC business combination between BioTE and Haymaker Acquisition Corp. III (a SPAC). The structure was not a classic merger in the statutory sense, but a more elaborate reorganization culminating in an “Up‑C” structure.

Key steps included:

  1. Redomiciling and Recapitalization of Holdings
    Holdings:
    • Redomiciled from Nevada to Delaware; and
    • Recapitalized its multiple equity classes (Class A, AA, AAA, AAAA Units) into a single class called Class A Common Units.
  2. Creating an Up‑C Structure with the SPAC
    After the recapitalization, Holdings and the SPAC cross‑issued securities:
    • Holdings issued Class A Common Units to Haymaker SPAC.
    • Haymaker SPAC issued to Holdings:
      • The remaining cash in the SPAC trust (approximately $12 million, after heavy redemptions); and
      • Class V stock, which had voting rights but no economic interest.
    Holdings then:
    • Distributed the Class V stock to the holders of the pre‑transaction Class A Common Units, including the Trusts.
    Each holder of a Class A Common Unit plus one Class V share had the right to convert those into a single share of the publicly traded corporation (the former SPAC, later renamed biote Corp, or “PubCo”).
  3. Resulting Ownership
    Immediately after closing:
    • Haymaker SPAC, renamed biote Corp, became the sole managing member of Holdings.
    • Each Trust’s interest dropped from approximately 2.8% in pre‑transaction Holdings to about 2% of the combined public company’s equity and voting power.
    • The Trusts then voluntarily exercised their conversion rights and received PubCo Class A common stock (“PubCo stock”).
    • The Trusts voluntarily sold all of their PubCo stock.

Because roughly 98% of SPAC investors redeemed their shares, the transaction delivered only about $12 million in fresh capital, compared to over $317.5 million originally expected. The Court of Chancery described the “principal effect” of the deal as diluting Holdings’ legacy owners in exchange for “whatever minimal cash” the SPAC contributed.

C. The Claims in the Court of Chancery

In July 2024, the Trusts sued in the Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting:

  • Breach of fiduciary duty against the Insider Defendants, for structuring and approving a recapitalization and business combination that:
    • Unfairly redistributed equity;
    • Diluted the Trusts’ holdings; and
    • Diversed transaction consideration and control to insiders.
  • Aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against the Haymaker Defendants and Cooley LLP.
  • Unjust enrichment against all defendants.

Defendants moved to dismiss under:

  • Chancery Court Rule 23.1 (failure to plead derivative standing); and
  • Chancery Court Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim, including lack of standing as to any direct claims).

D. The Court of Chancery’s Ruling

The Court of Chancery granted the motions to dismiss on three core grounds:

  1. Claims characterized as derivative under Brookfield Asset Management v. Rosson
    Relying on Brookfield, which held that dilution‑type claims are “classically derivative,” the court concluded the Trusts’ injuries were to the company as a whole and thus derivative in nature.
  2. Failure to satisfy the continuous ownership rule of Lewis v. Anderson
    Lewis requires a derivative plaintiff to:
    • Be a stockholder at the time of the alleged wrong;
    • Remain a stockholder at the time of filing suit; and
    • Maintain stockholder status throughout the litigation.
    The Trusts had admittedly sold their interests; therefore, they lacked derivative standing.
  3. Loss of standing even for direct claims under Urdan v. WR Capital Partners
    The Court of Chancery held that, even if the claims were direct, they were not personal to the Trusts and instead “traveled” with the stock under Urdan. When the Trusts converted their Holdings units and Class V shares into PubCo stock and sold that stock, they conveyed their claims to the buyers.

On appeal, the Trusts focused their arguments on the second and third points: whether their claims were direct and whether Urdan actually stripped them of standing after their sale.

III. Issues on Appeal

The Supreme Court distilled the appeal to two primary questions:

  1. Direct vs. derivative characterization:
    Did the Court of Chancery err in classifying the Trusts’ claims as derivative under Brookfield, rather than as direct claims under Parnes v. Bally Entertainment Corp.?
  2. Effect of sale of securities under Urdan:
    Even if the claims were direct, did the Trusts lose standing to pursue dilution and diversion claims when they converted and sold their securities, given the rule that certain claims “inhering” in securities travel with the securities upon transfer?

The Supreme Court chose not to resolve the first question. Instead, it assumed for argument’s sake that the Trusts’ claims could be treated as direct and held that, under Urdan, the Trusts nonetheless lost standing when they sold their equity.

IV. Summary of the Supreme Court’s Decision

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal. Its key holdings can be summarized as follows:

  1. Urdan controls: dilution and diversion claims are not personal and “travel” with the securities.
    The Court reiterated that under 6 Del. C. § 8‑302(a) and its prior decision in Urdan, the buyer of a security acquires “all rights in the security.” That phrase encompasses all rights that “inhere in the security itself,” including claims addressing dilution and diversion allegedly caused by fiduciary misconduct in a transaction. Such claims are not personal to the selling holder; they pass to the buyer.
  2. Standing is lost once the holder sells the relevant securities, regardless of whether the claims are described as direct or derivative.
    Citing Urdan, the Court emphasized that dilution claims, whether “described as direct, derivative, or both,” are not personal; standing depends on ownership of the securities, not on the plaintiff’s labeling of the claim.
  3. The same rule applies to diversion claims.
    The Court expressly extended the Urdan reasoning to diversion claims, which also arise out of the relationship among stockholder, stock, and company. They too travel with the securities upon transfer.
  4. The plaintiffs voluntarily exchanged and sold their interests; this extinguished their standing.
    After recapitalization, the Trusts:
    • Retained an equity interest in Holdings (now as Class A Common Units);
    • Could have continued to hold those units and maintained standing; but
    • Instead voluntarily exchanged their Holdings units and Class V shares into PubCo stock, and then voluntarily sold that stock.
    Under Urdan, their dilution and diversion claims traveled with the securities through this chain and ended up with the purchasers, not with the Trusts.
  5. The plaintiffs’ attempt to characterize the conversions as “involuntary” fails and was waived.
    On appeal, the Trusts argued that their claims arose when they held earlier‑stage securities (Nevada‑law Class AAA units), which were later “forcibly” converted. The Court:
    • Found that this involuntary‑conversion theory had not been fairly presented below and was thus waived under Supreme Court Rule 8; and
    • Held, in any event, that the redomiciling and recapitalization were merely “preparatory” steps and that the real value‑shift and alleged dilution/diversion occurred at the exchange of Class A Units and Class V shares for PubCo stock—a step the Trusts undertook voluntarily.

Because the Court held that Urdan alone resolved the appeal, it did not need to decide whether Brookfield had in effect displaced or limited Parnes in the context of these claims. The derivative versus direct classification was rendered functionally irrelevant to the outcome.

V. Detailed Analysis

A. The Core Standing Framework: Rights that “Inhere in the Security”

The opinion rests on a doctrinal distinction refined in Urdan and its underlying citations:

  • Rights that inhere in the security itself (sometimes called “property rights” attached to the shares); and
  • Personal rights that a securityholder may have arising from separate agreements or conduct not dependent on ongoing ownership.

Under 6 Del. C. § 8‑302(a), a purchaser of a security acquires all rights in the security that the transferor had or could transfer. Delaware decisions like In re Sunstates Corp. Shareholder Litigation, In re Activision Blizzard, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, and I.A.T.S.E. Local No. One Pension Fund v. General Electric Co. have developed this concept:

  • Claims tied to the company‑stockholder relationship—such as challenges to a merger’s fairness, compliance with a corporate charter, or executive compensation—are said to “inhere” in the shares.
  • By contrast, a separate contract right (e.g., an agreement with a particular buyer) or a tort claim for fraud in a share purchase or sale is personal to the contracting or defrauded party and does not necessarily transfer with the shares.

Urdan held that dilution claims fall into the former category. They are not personal to the complaining stockholder but are inherently linked to the rights embedded in the securities themselves and thus pass to the buyer when the securities are sold.

Yosaki takes the next logical step by explicitly confirming:

  • Dilution claims “whether described as direct, derivative, or both, are not personal to the plaintiffs and travel with the sale of their stock”; and
  • “The same is true of diversion claims”—they, too, concern how value attached to the shares was allocated in a challenged transaction and thus inhere in the securities.

This eliminates any residual argument that so‑called “diversion” claims—where plaintiffs assert that fiduciaries captured a side payment or extra consideration—might remain with the seller as a personal right, even after sale. Under Yosaki, they do not.

B. Direct vs. Derivative: Why the Court Sidestepped the Classification

The Trusts argued that:

  • Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. v. Rosson did not overrule Parnes v. Bally Entertainment Corp.; and
  • Under Parnes, when fiduciaries extract “side payments” or self‑dealing benefits from a transaction at the expense of legacy owners, the resulting harm is personal and thus gives rise to a direct claim.

Parnes indeed allowed a stockholder to assert a direct claim challenging a merger when the stockholder alleged that the fiduciaries diverted part of the merger consideration to themselves, effectively “shrinking the pie” unfairly to the detriment of the public shareholders.

Brookfield, by contrast, reclassified so‑called “overpayment” or “dilution” claims as purely derivative, overruling earlier decisions that had used a more flexible “dual nature” approach (claims that could be both direct and derivative).

Rather than resolving how Parnes and Brookfield interact in the context of this SPAC transaction, the Supreme Court in Yosaki made a strategic decision:

  • It assumed, without deciding, that the Trusts’ claims could be treated as direct.
  • It then held that, even on this more favorable assumption, standing was lost upon sale under Urdan.

This approach allowed the Court to:

  • Affirm the judgment without reaching potentially difficult questions about the precise contours of Parnes post‑Brookfield;
  • Reinforce the robust scope of Urdan (and thus the transferable nature of dilution and diversion claims); and
  • Send a practical message: ownership, not characterization, is what matters most for standing in dilution and diversion cases.

C. The Continuous Ownership Rule and Why It Became Secondary Here

The Court of Chancery had applied the classic Lewis v. Anderson “continuous ownership rule,” which is a derivative standing requirement: a stockholder must own stock at the time of the alleged wrong, at the time of filing, and continuously through the litigation.

In many cases, that rule—and its limited exceptions—are central to the analysis. In Yosaki, however, once the Delaware Supreme Court turned the focus to Urdan, the continuous ownership rule became almost redundant. The Court reasoned:

  • If the claims are derivative, Lewis cuts off standing once the plaintiff sells;
  • If the claims are direct but “inhere in the security,” Urdan cuts off standing once the plaintiff sells;
  • Either way, the sale is fatal to standing.

This functional convergence of doctrines underscores a major theme: a plaintiff who has sold the securities at issue, and whose injuries are tied to the value or terms of those securities, will rarely be able to maintain a fiduciary duty claim in Delaware courts, absent some independent, personal right not bound up in share ownership.

D. Addressing the Plaintiffs’ Attempted Distinction: Different Securities and “Involuntary” Conversion

The Trusts tried to distinguish Urdan by arguing:

  1. Their claims arose at a time when they held Class AAA units in a Nevada LLC (Holdings), before the redomiciling and recapitalization.
  2. Those Class AAA units were later “involuntarily” converted into Delaware‑law Class A Common Units, and then, as a condition of the transaction, into PubCo securities.
  3. Urdan, they said, presupposes a voluntary sale of the same securities on which the claims arose. Here, by contrast, they posited an involuntary conversion into entirely different securities.

The Supreme Court disposed of this argument in two moves:

  1. Waiver
    The Court held that the particular “involuntary conversion” theory advanced on appeal had not been “fairly presented” to the Court of Chancery and was thus barred by Delaware Supreme Court Rule 8. The plaintiffs had earlier tried a different distinction—emphasizing mergers vs. non‑merger transactions—which they later effectively abandoned by conceding this was “not technically a merger.” They could not pivot to a new theory on appeal.
  2. Substantive rejection
    The Court went on to explain that, even if considered, the argument failed on the merits:
    • The redomiciling from Nevada to Delaware and the recapitalization into a single class of Class A Common Units were seen as “preparatory” steps.
    • The Trusts retained an equity interest in Holdings after recapitalization—they became holders of Class A Common Units.
    • They could have held those interests and remained in position to assert any claims inherent in those units.
    • It was at the later stage—when they voluntarily exchanged their Class A Holdings units and Class V stock for PubCo shares—that the alleged dilution and diversion are tied, and that is also when they voluntarily sold.
    Thus, the notion of an “involuntary” conversion severing their claims did not fit the actual transactional sequence.

This analysis has an important practical consequence: recapitalizations and re‑domicilings, even if required as part of a broader deal process, do not automatically create a category of preserved, pre‑conversion claims immune from Urdan. What matters is:

  • When the complained‑of harm (dilution, diversion) occurs; and
  • Whether the plaintiff continued to hold the securities that embody that harm.

E. Precedents and Their Influence

1. Urdan v. WR Capital Partners, LLC (244 A.3d 668 (Del. 2020))

Urdan is the linchpin of this decision. There, LLC investors challenged a recapitalization that allegedly diluted their interests. After the recapitalization, they sold their LLC units and later brought fiduciary duty claims seeking to recover for the loss associated with the dilutive transaction.

The Supreme Court in Urdan held:

  • Under 6 Del. C. § 8‑302(a), a purchaser takes “all rights in the security.”
  • Claims about how a recapitalization affected the value or relative position of those units inhere in the units and thus are transferred when the units are sold.
  • Accordingly, the plaintiffs in Urdan lacked standing after they sold their units; the claims had passed to the buyers.

Yosaki explicitly extends that logic to both dilution and diversion claims and emphasizes that the result does not depend on whether such claims are labeled “direct” or “derivative.” The controlling question is whether the claim arises out of the stockholder‑company relationship and the terms of the security, as opposed to being a separate personal right.

2. Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. v. Rosson (261 A.3d 1251 (Del. 2021))

Brookfield overruled earlier cases (especially Gentile v. Rossette) that had allowed certain dilution claims to be brought as both derivative and direct. It held that:

  • Dilution claims where the corporation is alleged to have overpaid or creatively reallocated equity are purely derivative, because:
    • The harm is to the corporation (which becomes overleveraged, under‑capitalized, or stripped of value); and
    • Any harm to stockholders is pro rata and indirect.

The Court of Chancery applied Brookfield to characterize the Trusts’ claims as derivative. While the Supreme Court in Yosaki did not need to revisit that classification, Brookfield remains an important backdrop:

  • It shows the Court’s general preference for treating dilution as a derivative harm.
  • It sets up why the Court of Chancery immediately invoked the continuous ownership rule.

But Yosaki illustrates that even if a plaintiff could escape Brookfield and recast dilution as “direct,” Urdan will independently foreclose standing if the plaintiff has sold the securities.

3. Parnes v. Bally Entertainment Corp. (722 A.2d 1243 (Del. 1999))

In Parnes, a stockholder alleged that directors had siphoned off part of the merger consideration for themselves, thereby diminishing the merger price received by the public stockholders. The Court allowed a direct claim to proceed because the alleged wrong was directly to the stockholders’ merger consideration, not only to the corporation.

The Trusts invoked Parnes to argue that when fiduciaries extract side payments or self‑dealing benefits in connection with a transaction, the resulting harm to legacy owners is personal and redressable via direct claims. They contended that Brookfield did not displace this key aspect of Parnes.

The Supreme Court in Yosaki neither endorsed nor rejected that reading. Instead, it treated the Parnes argument as non‑dispositive: even if a Parnes‑style, direct diversion claim exists, it still “travels with the security” under Urdan and is extinguished upon a sale.

4. Lewis v. Anderson (477 A.2d 1040 (Del. 1984))

Lewis is the bedrock case establishing the continuous ownership rule for derivative suits. It requires derivative plaintiffs to hold stock:

  • At the time of the alleged wrong;
  • At the time suit is filed; and
  • Continuously thereafter.

There are limited “merger exceptions,” but those were not meaningfully implicated here. Because the Trusts sold out entirely, they could not meet Lewis for derivative standing. The Supreme Court did not have to adjust or expand Lewis; rather, it showed how Lewis and Urdan operate in tandem to bar claims after sale.

5. Other Supporting Authorities

The Court also cited:

  • 6 Del. C. § 8‑302(a) – codifying that a purchaser of a security acquires all rights in the security that the transferor had or had power to transfer;
  • In re Sunstates Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Del. Ch. 2001) – distinguishing between rights that inhere in shares and personal rights;
  • In re Activision Blizzard, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Del. Ch. 2016) – elaborating on property vs personal claims;
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local No. One Pension Fund v. General Electric Co. (Del. Ch. 2016) – providing examples of claims that inhere in the stock; and
  • Supreme Court Rule 8 – limiting appellate review to issues fairly presented below.

These authorities collectively underpin the Court’s property‑rights framing of dilution and diversion claims and the strict approach to appellate issue preservation.

F. Application to SPAC / Up‑C Transactions

Although the Court emphasizes that the transaction “did not involve a merger” in the statutory sense, it acknowledges the Trusts’ argument that it “functionally operated as one.” The decision is thus important for SPAC and Up‑C structures, where:

  • Legacy owners often face complex recapitalizations, redemptions, and multi‑step restructurings;
  • There may be significant dilution in exchange for relatively little cash if SPAC investors redeem heavily; and
  • Sponsors and insiders may be alleged to have received disproportionate benefits.

Yosaki signals that:

  • Even in these complex structures, ordinary standing rules apply—a plaintiff who exits entirely by selling their post‑transaction equity forfeits dilution and diversion claims tied to that equity.
  • Re‑domiciling, recapitalizations, and cross‑issuances do not create a special carve‑out from Urdan.

Practically, it means that investors who believe a de‑SPAC deal diluted them unfairly or diverted value to insiders must think carefully before converting and selling. Once they do, their claims (to the extent they inhere in the security) travel to the buyer.

VI. Complex Concepts Simplified

A. Direct vs. Derivative Claims

  • Derivative claim: A claim brought on behalf of the company. The alleged injury is to the company (e.g., mismanagement, overpayment for an asset). Any recovery benefits the company, and only indirectly its stockholders.
  • Direct claim: A claim where the stockholder itself is alleged to have suffered a direct injury separate from any injury to the company (e.g., receiving too little merger consideration compared to what fair dealing required).

Why this matters: Derivative claims are subject to heightened procedural requirements (like demand futility and continuous ownership), while direct claims are not. But as Yosaki demonstrates, even direct claims may be lost if they are tied to ownership of the securities and those securities are sold.

B. Dilution and Diversion

  • Dilution: When a company issues new equity (shares or units) such that existing owners’ percentage ownership decreases. If the new issuance is at an unfairly low price, existing owners’ economic position can be harmed.
  • Diversion: When fiduciaries allegedly route some of the economic value of a transaction—such as cash, stock, or other consideration—into their own hands or to favored parties, reducing what ordinary stockholders receive.

In this case, the Trusts argued both: they suffered dilution (their percentage dropped from 2.8% of Holdings to about 2% of the combined public company), and insiders allegedly diverted value and control to themselves through the deal.

C. SPACs and Up‑C Structures

  • SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company): A public shell company formed to raise capital and then merge with or acquire a private company. Investors in the SPAC can usually redeem their shares for cash if they dislike the proposed deal.
  • Up‑C structure: A structure where:
    • Legacy owners hold interests in an operating partnership/LLC (e.g., Holdings);
    • A publicly traded corporation (PubCo) holds the managing interest in that entity; and
    • Legacy owners receive non‑economic voting stock (like Class V shares) in PubCo and the right to exchange their LLC units plus Class V stock for PubCo common stock.

In Yosaki, the Trusts:

  • Held LLC units in Holdings (pre‑transaction);
  • Received Class V stock in PubCo and recapitalized units (Class A Common Units);
  • Had the right to exchange one Class A unit plus one Class V share for a PubCo share; and
  • Voluntarily exercised that exchange right and then sold their PubCo shares.

D. Standing and the Continuous Ownership Rule

  • Standing: The legal capacity to bring a lawsuit. In Delaware corporate and LLC law, standing often depends on whether the plaintiff currently owns the securities whose rights they seek to enforce.
  • Continuous ownership rule (derivative cases): Under Lewis v. Anderson, a derivative plaintiff must own stock:
    • When the wrongful act occurred;
    • When the lawsuit is filed; and
    • Continuously throughout the case.

Yosaki adds that even for direct claims which inhere in the securities (like dilution and diversion), a parallel concept applies: if you sell the securities, you sell the claims.

E. Rights that Inhere in the Security vs. Personal Rights

  • Rights that inhere in the security: Rights that arise from holding the security itself and your relationship as a stockholder with the company (e.g., the right to receive your proportional share of merger consideration, the right that the board not wrongfully dilute your stake).
    • These rights travel with the security; a buyer acquires them upon purchase.
  • Personal rights: Rights independent of mere ownership (e.g., you had a side agreement to sell your shares at a particular price; you were personally defrauded in buying or selling).
    • These rights do not automatically transfer with the security unless specifically assigned.

Yosaki firmly places dilution and diversion claims in the “rights that inhere in the security” bucket.

VII. Impact and Future Implications

A. For Investors and Plaintiffs

The decision has significant implications for how investors, particularly in complex transactional settings, manage their litigation posture:

  • If an investor believes it has been unfairly diluted or that insiders diverted value in a transaction, selling out completely can effectively forfeit any ability to sue in Delaware for those harms, absent some truly personal, non‑security‑based claim.
  • This is true regardless of whether the investor can plausibly characterize the claim as:
    • Derivative under Brookfield;
    • Direct under Parnes; or
    • Both.
  • In the SPAC context—where many legacy holders may want liquidity quickly after a de‑SPAC—this creates a tension between monetizing their position and preserving the ability to litigate post‑closing.

B. For Fiduciaries and Transaction Planners

For boards, managers, and transaction planners, Yosaki provides:

  • Some comfort that stockholders who fully exit their positions post‑transaction will generally be foreclosed from later challenging dilution and diversion inherent in the deal structure.
  • A reminder, however, that stockholders who remain holders—whether of LLC units, dual‑class shares, or other securities—retain standing and can bring both derivative and (in some cases) direct claims regarding the fairness of the transaction.

Thus, the decision does not loosen fiduciary obligations; rather, it shapes the universe of potential plaintiffs by tying standing tightly to current ownership of the securities.

C. For SPAC and Up‑C Deal Litigation

Given the large wave of SPACs and de‑SPAC litigation, Yosaki will likely be cited frequently in cases involving:

  • Recapitalizations and redemptions preceding a SPAC business combination;
  • High redemption rates leading to substantially reduced cash proceeds in exchange for substantial equity and control shifts; and
  • Complex multi‑step reorganizations involving re‑domiciling, recapitalizations, and cross‑issuances.

By clarifying that these structures do not create an exception to Urdan’s “traveling claims” doctrine, the Court keeps SPAC‑related standing rules aligned with traditional corporate and LLC transactions.

D. Doctrinally: Strengthening the Property‑Rights View of Fiduciary Claims

Doctrinally, Yosaki strengthens the trend of treating many fiduciary duty claims—especially those concerning:

  • Value received in a transaction;
  • Dilution of existing holdings; and
  • Allocation of transaction consideration;

as inseparable from the securities themselves. This has at least two consequences:

  • It narrows the category of claims that can be brought by former stockholders against their former companies and fiduciaries.
  • It may shift focus toward:
    • Retained holders; and
    • Claims truly personal in nature (e.g., misrepresentations in a private sale agreement, side contracts, or other non‑stockholder‑status‑based rights).

VIII. Conclusion

The Yosaki Trust v. Weber is a concise but consequential order that fortifies a key principle in Delaware law: claims for dilution and diversion of value tied to securities are not personal to the holder, but inhere in the securities and travel with them upon transfer. As a result, a plaintiff who fully exits its investment by selling those securities—whether in the wake of a de‑SPAC Up‑C transaction or any other recapitalization—generally loses standing to pursue such claims in Delaware courts.

By resting its holding squarely on Urdan, and by explicitly extending the “traveling claims” doctrine to diversion claims, the Court underscores that:

  • The direct vs. derivative label will often be immaterial to standing once a plaintiff sells its securities;
  • Complex restructuring steps such as re‑domiciling and recapitalizations do not insulate claims from this rule; and
  • Investors who believe they have been harmed by an allegedly unfair transaction must think carefully about whether to remain holders if they wish to preserve their ability to litigate.

In the broader legal landscape, Yosaki reinforces Delaware’s commitment to a property‑rights conception of many fiduciary duty claims and provides important guidance for the rapidly evolving field of SPAC and Up‑C transaction litigation.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

Judge(s)

Seitz C.J.

Comments