Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Paisner v. Tan, Del. Ch., No. 2026-0307
Paisner v. Tan is a shareholder derivative action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 5, 2026, seeking to void an "extortionary" deal involving a 10% stake in Intel Corporation sold to the U.S. government.
Case Overview
Plaintiff: Richard D. Paisner, an Intel shareholder represented by Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP and GM Law.
Defendants: Lip-bu Tan (Intel director), other Intel board members, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and the Department of Commerce.
Core Allegation: The lawsuit alleges that Intel's board was coerced into issuing approximately 10% (9.9%) of its equity to the Department of Commerce (DOC) for "no meaningful consideration" following public demands from President Donald Trump.
Key Legal Arguments
The complaint, which was partially unsealed on March 11, 2026, asserts several grounds for invalidating the transaction:
Lack of Congressional Authority: The suit argues that only Congress can authorize a federal agency to become a partial owner of a publicly traded company, and no such law exists for this transaction.
Extortion and Coercion: It alleges the board succumbed to "well-founded fears" regarding personal and professional relationships after President Trump publicly claimed CEO Lip-bu Tan was conflicted and should be fired.
Illegal Voting Agreements: The deal reportedly included provisions requiring the government to vote its 9.9% stake as directed by the Intel board and pledged government support for sitting directors. The plaintiff argues this created a conflict of interest by providing directors with a unique benefit not shared by other shareholders.
Pretextual Funding: The complaint claims the government demanded the shares as a "pretextual advancement" of funds Intel had already earned under a 2024 CHIPS Act agreement.
The case was initially filed under seal on March 5, 2026, and unsealed on March 11, 2026, with certain confidential information redacted. The plaintiff seeks an order canceling the deal and unspecified damages.
Bloomberg Law News