Harrah's Entm't v. JCC Holding Company

Delaware Court of Chancery · 2002 · Corporations

802 A.2d 294 (Del. Ch. 2002)

Updated August 22, 2026

Corporationsdirector nominationsstockholder franchisecharter and bylaw interpretationshareholder franchisecharter interpretationbylaw interpretationextrinsic evidence

Facts

After JCC's bankruptcy reorganization, its charter and bylaws created a seven-member classified board for three years, with Harrah's initially having three nominees and the Noteholders and Bankers Trust four. At the first annual meeting after the reorganization, two seats were up for election, one then held by a Harrah's nominee and one by a Noteholder nominee. Harrah's nominated one candidate under a charter provision giving it the right to nominate one director at that meeting and a second candidate under the general bylaw provision allowing stockholder nominations if advance notice was given. JCC rejected the second nomination, arguing that the specific charter language limited Harrah's to only one nominee at that meeting.

Issue

Did JCC's charter and bylaws restrict Harrah's to nominating only one director at the first annual meeting after the reorganization, or could Harrah's also nominate an additional director if it complied with the general advance-notice nomination bylaw? More broadly, how should ambiguous negotiated corporate instruments be construed when one interpretation would restrict fundamental stockholder electoral rights?

Rule

Corporate charters and bylaws are interpreted like contracts. If the text is plain, its meaning is determined from the language alone; if it is ambiguous, the court may consider extrinsic evidence. When a negotiated corporate instrument is alleged to restrict fundamental stockholder electoral rights, including the ability to nominate candidates for director elections, the court will review the extrinsic evidence but will not enforce the restriction unless clear and convincing evidence shows that the parties clearly intended to impose it.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Cascade Harbor Resorts, Inc., a Delaware corporation based in Portland, adopted a negotiated charter during a restructuring. The charter states that Orion Capital, a 48% stockholder, "shall have the right to nominate one director" at the next annual meeting, while the bylaws separately permit any stockholder to nominate directors if written notice is delivered 75 days in advance. Orion timely submits two nominees, and the board rejects the second.

If Orion sues to compel acceptance of its second nominee, which is the strongest argument under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. Corporate instruments are interpreted like contracts. Here, language granting a stockholder the "right" to nominate one director is phrased affirmatively, not restrictively. Absent words like "only," "solely," or "exclusively," the better reading is that the special provision guarantees at least one nomination without negating additional nominations made in compliance with the general bylaw. Because the dispute concerns a restriction on fundamental electoral rights, any contrary reading would require at least ambiguity plus clear and convincing extrinsic evidence of intent to impose the restriction.