Comment Rescue: Et tu, Bryan?
“Dude,” writing about why Bryan Townsend should be primaried, posted this comment under El Som’s top 5 2026 targets. Because Townsend’s seat isn’t up until 2028, I’m reposting it here, because people should know that Bryan Townsend, like so many Delaware Democrats, is liberal as all hell when it comes to social issues, but when it gets down to the economic nitty-gritty he’s exactly what you’d expect a corporate lawyer to be: A toady for whoever coughs up enough dough.
Dude’s comment:
Townsend said that the final draft of the bill was written by John Mark Zeberkiewicz, a corporate lawyer at Wilmington’s largest law firm Richards, Layton & Finger, which is representing Tesla in Delaware lawsuits. Zeberkiewicz is a member of the Council who has previously drafted changes to the state corporate law.
Richards, Layton & Finger confirmed their involvement in the drafting of SB 21 on Tuesday, but spokeswoman Laura Rossi said “the process was not on behalf of or otherwise influenced by any firm client.”
Allow me add that Laura Rossi is full of shit, and so is Bryan Townsend.
Townsend needs to withdraw from sponsoring this bill or someone should submit an ethics complaint against him with the Delaware Bar.
Let me suggest that the community not immerse itself into attack over this bill. I am, at this point, show-me agnostic of its merits, but the alliances are as complex as the fact patterns. One set of corporate players – founders – will like this bill and others – outside investors – will not. Think of a battlefield with Musk, Bezos and their likes on one side and with Carl Icahn, Nelson Peltz and similar folk on the other side. There will be well-framed arguments on each side of this proposed legislation.
Amendments to the corporate code tend to be enacted unanimously because representatives of all sides – directors, shareholders and the permutations within each group – have developed ground rules that are designed to give predictability and fairness to the law and its application in real-world circumstances. Whether this proposal follows that pattern will be the subject of robust discussion. If there proves to be no consensus, the support and opposition will not follow rigid ideological patterns.
As you know, I’ve supported Bryan Townsend since he ran against Tony DeLuca.
But don’t you think he has a pretty clear conflict here?
To play devil’s advocate, at least Townsend understands corporate law. Can you imagine if someone like the Ol’ Lump tried to carry legislation like this?
Well, Ol’ Lump’s on the other end of the spectrum from Townsend.
You simply have to have expert witnesses who are knowledgeable about the legislation testify. For and against, if necessary. Personal privilege of the floor is routinely granted for such witnesses. The sponsor doesn’t have to answer questions. Meaning, the sponsor doesn’t have to be an expert.
Ah, a “nuanced” race to the bottom.
Here’s a bluesky thread that lays out the danger of this bill pretty clearly. It allows directors with a conflict of interest to shirk their fiduciary duty without penalty.
https://bsky.app/profile/lawnerd.bsky.social/post/3lin5lcqgs22t
I mean read the first sentence of the bill:
Section 1 of this Act amends § 144 of Title 8 to provide safe harbor procedures for acts or transactions in which one or more directors or officers as well as controlling stockholders and members of control groups have interests or relationships that might render them interested or not independent with respect to the act or transaction.