Connect with us

Delaware

Delaware faces exodus of tech companies

Published

on

Delaware faces exodus of tech companies


Delaware is facing a further exodus of tech companies amid reports that Meta and Dropbox are moving out of the state.

Newsweek has contacted Meta and Dropbox for comment via email.

Why It Matters

Delaware has long been considered a business-friendly state due to its corporate tax advantages, and is home to multiple large companies. However, backlash against the First State has intensified after Delaware Judge Kathaleen McCormick ruled that Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s record-breaking $56 billion compensation package was excessive.

Musk, who has become increasingly influential in both the political and corporate world, urged companies to pull out of the Democratic-led state. In February 2024, he announced that SpaceX was relocating its incorporation from Delaware to Texas, following Tesla’s corporate move from California to Texas in 2021.

Advertisement
A photograph taken during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on January 18, 2024, shows the logo of Meta, the US company that owns and operates Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp.

FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images

What to Know

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, is reportedly considering moving its incorporation from Delaware to another state, such as Texas, according to reports in the national press.

The company has been in talks with Texas officials about the potential move, though other states are also being considered. An unnamed source told The Wall Street Journal that these discussions predated former President Donald Trump’s return to office.

Musk holds a role in the new Trump administration as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The move would not involve Meta relocating its corporate headquarters out of California.

Texas is perceived as having a more favorable legal and regulatory environment for businesses, particularly in taxation and corporate governance, Reuters reported.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, file-hosting service Dropbox is also said to be moving its incorporation from Delaware to Nevada.

The move was revealed in a letter to stockholders that has been shared on social media. Dropbox said it has received approval from a majority of shareholders to proceed with the transition.

What People Are Saying

Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, told The Wall Street Journal: “The Texas state government is trying to send out signals that the Texas state courts will be more friendly to businesses than the Delaware court has been. But there’s no guarantee that that’s going to happen.”

Eric Talley, a corporate law and governance professor at Columbia Law School, told The New York Times: “One could read this as a bet that because Musk moved Tesla and some of his other companies to Texas, the client effects will be that it’ll develop a jurisprudence friendly to controllers. The hope that Musk and Zuckerberg have is that the courts in Texas will be much more permissive about them doing whatever they want, even if it involves a conflict of interest. There’s a much longer leash in Texas.”

Robert Anderson, a law professor at the University of Arkansas, posted on X, formerly Twitter: “Dropbox is also leaving Delaware. It’s happening. For those who don’t spend their days studying corporate law, today is an absolutely seismic event.”

Advertisement

Elon Musk in a January 2024 post on X: “Never incorporate your company in the state of Delaware

Dropbox, in a message to stockholders, stated: “Stockholders of the company holding at least a majority of the voting power of our outstanding shares of capital stock entitled to vote adopted resolutions by written consent in lieu of a meeting of stockholders to approve the reincorporation of the company from the state of Delaware to the state of Nevada by conversion.”

What Happens Next

It remains unclear when or if Meta and Dropbox will officially move out of Delaware.



Source link

Advertisement

Delaware

DSBF Final: Odds On Put Option prevails in Ramona Hubbard – State of Delaware News

Published

on

DSBF Final: Odds On Put Option prevails in Ramona Hubbard – State of Delaware News


Odds On Put Option, driven by Tim Tetrick, won in 1:54.1 at Bally’s Dover on Wednesday

DOVER — Odds On Put Option parlayed a pocket trip into a lifetime-best 1:54.1 victory in the $110,000 Ramona Hubbard Delaware Standardbred Breeders’ Fund championship for 2-year-old pacing fillies on Wednesday, Nov. 26, at Bally’s Dover.

Tim Tetrick sent Odds On Put Option to the lead from post 6 right at the opening bell, clearing even-money favorite Just Applause (driven by Jason Bartlett) through a :27.4 first quarter before yielding control to Warrens Charm (Art Stafford Jr.), who brushed from third, with a circuit to go. After stalking unabatedly from the pocket through middle splits of :56.2 and 1:25.4, Odds On Put Option was boxed on the final turn by Just Applause, who re-emerged to mount a first-over rally and engage Warrens Charm.

Odds On Put Option won her fourth career race in her seventh start Wednesday as the 2-1 third choice.
Odds On Put Option, the 2-1 third choice in Wednesday’s race, won her fourth career race in her seventh start.

Just before the top of the stretch, Just Applause broke stride, enabling Odds On Put Option to angle off the pegs at the eighth pole and overtake Warrens Charm to win by a widening 1-1/2 lengths. Meemaw’s Column (Russell Foster) finished third, another 6-1/4 lengths in arrears.

Scott DiDomenico trains Odds On Put Option, now a four-time winner with $107,075 in earnings from seven starts, for Odds On Racing. As the 2-1 third choice, the He’s Watching-Odds On Hollywood filly returned $6 to win.

Advertisement

The DSBF series for 3-year-olds begin Monday, Dec. 1, with a single $20,000 first-round preliminary event for sophomore trotting fillies kicking off a 15-race card. First post is 4:30 p.m. 

image_printPrint



Source link

Continue Reading

Delaware

Sen. Coons calls appointment of Delaware’s acting U.S. attorney ‘probably illegal’

Published

on

Sen. Coons calls appointment of Delaware’s acting U.S. attorney ‘probably illegal’


What are journalists missing from the state of Delaware? What would you most like WHYY News to cover? Let us know.

Is Delaware’s “acting” U.S. attorney, a loyalist of President Donald Trump who chaired the state Republican Party immediately before her appointment, serving in the post illegally?

That’s a question now being asked about Julianne Murray as federal courts around the country have ruled that five other U.S. attorneys were unlawfully put in their posts on an “interim” or “acting” basis by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Bondi installed Murray as Delaware’s “interim” U.S. attorney in July. The 120-day limit for interim appointments ended this month, when Bondi changed Murray’s status as Delaware’s chief federal law enforcement officer to “acting.”

Advertisement

But U.S. Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that vets candidates for U.S. attorney posts, told WHYY News he thinks the steps Bondi took to keep Murray in the post are “probably illegal.”

The nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys are critical law enforcement administrators who guide prosecutions in their jurisdictions for a wide range of federal cases, including gang violence, narcotics trafficking, firearms crimes, kidnapping, bank fraud, money laundering and tax evasion.

Under the U.S. Constitution, federal law and longstanding practice, U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president and must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Bondi, however, has chosen a nontraditional route with some appointments, only to have her end-around maneuvers declared unlawful in New Jersey, Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico and California.

The latest reversal came Monday. In a dramatic decision, a judge ruled that former Trump personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan — an insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience before Bondi made her interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September — was illegally installed. Bondi immediately pledged to appeal.

Advertisement

Perhaps more importantly, the judge’s order that Halligan’s appointment was unlawful also dismissed two high-profile cases — the criminal indictments against former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump had publicly called for their prosecutions and Halligan, within days of taking the job, obtained grand jury indictments against them.

Meanwhile, the status of Alina Habba, another of Trump’s former personal attorneys who Bondi put in the New Jersey post this year, only to have her actions declared unlawful in August, is also in limbo. The case is now before the 3rd U.S. Circuit of Appeals, whose decisions govern New Jersey and Delaware.

From left, the appointments of Alina Habba of New Jersey and Lindsey Halligan of the Eastern District of Virginia have been ruled illegal. (Associated Press/The White House)

While no formal legal challenge has been brought against Murray’s appointment, the details surrounding her installation have similarities to the others that have been contested and ruled invalid.

Murray and the others have not been nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate.

Advertisement

And like Habba in New Jersey, the judges in the U.S. District Court for Delaware decided not to reappoint Murray to the post after her initial 120-day “interim” status ended Nov. 11.

Federal law says that after 120 days, a district’s judges may put someone in the post until the vacancy is formally filled.

In New Jersey, the judges named Habba’s top assistant to the post, but Bondi promptly fired her. Then, Bondi took several legal steps to make Habba the “acting” U.S. Attorney, using another federal law that lets someone fill a post for 210 days.

Even though a judge ruled Habba’s appointment unlawful in August, she remains in the post while the Trump administration appeals.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Delaware

Housing advocates urge Wilmington officials to do more to address homelessness

Published

on

Housing advocates urge Wilmington officials to do more to address homelessness


Mayor John Carney vowed to address homelessness in his first year in office. He is proposing allowing unhoused people to camp in one of the city’s parks. But all other encampments would be banned.

“As we attempt to provide support for the unhoused here in Wilmington, we have a responsibility on how, on behalf of the residents of neighborhoods, to ensure that Wilmington operates in an orderly and lawful way,” he said in October.

Raquel Cruz said she doesn’t think the mayor’s plan goes far enough.

“The mayor needs to do much, much more than just shuffle the unhoused around rather than try to pursue better outcomes for them,” she said.

Advertisement
Raquel Cruz and Noel Camacho joined the rally at Wilmington City Hall to advocate for more services for the homeless. (Sarah Mueller/WHYY)

Housing advocates argue a ban on sleeping outside criminalizes homelessness. They said Wilmington needs more shelter beds and affordable housing.

Carney said city officials would provide restroom facilities and clean water for Christina Park residents and will explore adding a shower facility there. On-site security is also part of the plan.

The city is also working with the Wilmington Housing Authority and the Ministry of Caring to open a dining hall for the homeless at the WHA site a block away from Christina Park.

People marching on the sidewalk and holding up signs
Marchers walk to the Wilmington city hall as part of a progressive movement meant to rally support for homeless services. (Sarah Mueller/WHYY)

The mayor has also argued that Philadelphia’s efforts to clean up Kensington, an area known for an open-air drug market and homeless encampments, is adding to Wilmington’s homeless population looking for shelter and services.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending