Incorporator The Journal of U.S. Formation
Start Free Quiz
Editorial 7 MIN READ

The Delaware close corporation, reappraised

A 1967 statute that lost its market to the LLC from below and the PBC from above

The Editors
Staff, Incorporator.org
7 min read Updated
Contents 7 sections
  1. What the statute actually does
  2. Why the LLC ate the low end
  3. Why the PBC ate the high end
  4. Where remnants still live
  5. The CTA overlay you will not escape
  6. What to do with an existing close corporation
  7. Sources

he Delaware close corporation is a fifty-six-year-old statute in search of a use case. Enacted in 1967 as subchapter XIV of the Delaware General Corporation Law, codified at 8 Del. C. sections 341 through 356, it was once the sharpest tool for a small group of owners who wanted the liability shield of a corporation without the boardroom theater. Today it is mostly a museum piece, displaced by the LLC from below and by the public benefit corporation from above.

The statute is still on the books and a meaningful number of old entities still sit inside it. If you are inheriting one or inspecting one in diligence, the mechanics are worth understanding before you decide whether to leave it alone or migrate it out.

What the statute actually does

Section 341 defines the threshold. A close corporation under the Delaware regime must state in its certificate of incorporation that it is a close corporation and must cap its record holders at no more than thirty stockholders. Stock must be subject to transfer restrictions permitted by section 202, and there can be no public offering within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933. Miss any of the three prongs and the corporation is not a close corporation under subchapter XIV, regardless of what the certificate says.

Section 342 fills in the transfer-restriction requirement. It lists the permissible restrictions: rights of first refusal, consent requirements, mandatory buy-sell at defined prices, and similar tools. The restriction must appear on the share certificate or in a book-entry notation that puts transferees on notice. A restriction that does not meet section 202 is unenforceable against a purchaser without actual knowledge, which is how close-corporation litigation often starts.

Section 351 is the real selling point. A Delaware close corporation can provide in its certificate that the business shall be managed by the stockholders directly, dispensing with a board of directors entirely. If it does, the stockholders assume the duties and liabilities of directors. No annual meeting is required. No director elections. No separate board minutes. For a family business run out of one conference room, that was a genuine simplification in 1967.

Sections 352 through 356 round it out with custody remedies, provisional directors to break deadlocks, and protection for validly adopted stockholder agreements that would otherwise conflict with general corporate rules.

Why the LLC ate the low end

The Delaware Limited Liability Company Act arrived in 1992 and by the early 2000s it had absorbed the audience that had once needed the close corporation. An LLC offers the same liability shield. Its default management structure is already informal; you can be member-managed without any statutory contortion. It gives you contractual freedom that subchapter XIV never matched, because the operating agreement is the whole game under 6 Del. C. section 18-1101(b), and Delaware courts have been unusually willing to enforce what the parties wrote down.

The tax treatment is the second half of the answer. A single-member LLC is a disregarded entity by default; a multi-member LLC is a partnership by default; either can elect corporate treatment if it wants. A close corporation, by contrast, is still a corporation. It pays entity-level tax as a C-corp unless it qualifies for and elects S-corp status under IRC section 1361, whose eligibility limits are stricter in some directions than subchapter XIV's own caps. If you wanted pass-through taxation, the LLC got you there without needing to police an S-election alongside close-corporation status.

A founder in 2023 who describes the problem a close corporation was designed for (a handful of owners, informal management, restricted transfers, liability protection) will be told by any competent adviser to form an LLC. The advice has been consistent for two decades.

Why the PBC ate the high end

The public benefit corporation, authorized in Delaware by 8 Del. C. subchapter XV (sections 361 through 368) in 2013, took the other end of the market. A PBC is still a for-profit Delaware corporation; it can be venture-funded, can issue preferred stock, and can IPO. The difference is a stated public benefit in its certificate and a tripartite fiduciary duty under section 365 that requires directors to balance stockholder interests, the interests of those affected by the corporation's conduct, and the stated benefit.

For an owner who wants mission baked in but also wants exit optionality, the PBC is a more honest fit than the close corporation ever was. A PBC scales cleanly: there is no thirty-holder cap, no prohibition on a public offering, no subchapter that unwinds the moment you grow past it.

Combined with the LLC on the other side, the close corporation ended up with no natural customer. Small and closely held goes to the LLC. Mission driven goes to the PBC. Ordinary venture-track incorporation goes to the plain C-corp under DGCL subchapter I.

Where remnants still live

A meaningful close-corporation statute survives in only a handful of states. Delaware is the canonical one. California has its own regime under Corp. Code section 158, which caps holders at 35 and requires the articles to state the maximum. Nevada's close-corporation provisions sit in NRS chapter 78A. Texas preserved the form in Business Organizations Code chapter 21, subchapter O. A few other states still have statutes on paper but no active bar practice around them.

The entities that actually remain fall into three buckets. First, agricultural cooperatives and similar family-held rural businesses that were organized in the 1970s and 1980s and never had a reason to reorganize; the transfer restrictions and the thirty-holder cap fit the economics of a multigenerational farm. Second, tightly held professional practices that predate the professional-corporation reforms, though most of that territory has since migrated to the professional corporation or professional LLC under state-specific rules. Third, historical family trusts and estate-planning structures that elected into subchapter XIV before 2000 and whose trustees have no appetite for a reorganization that would trigger appraisal, recognition, or re-papered shareholder agreements.

If you hold stock in one of these, the case law still matters. Nixon v. Blackwell, 626 A.2d 1366 (Del. 1993) is the governing Delaware authority on minority-stockholder claims in the closely held context; the court declined to import a freestanding equal-opportunity rule, directing minority holders to the bargained-for protections of a stockholder agreement instead. California went the other way in Jones v. Ahmanson, 1 Cal. 3d 93 (1969), holding that controlling shareholders in a closely held corporation owe each other a duty of good faith and inherent fairness. The same fact pattern can turn on the forum in a way that a planner needs to price.

The CTA overlay you will not escape

Close corporations are squarely inside the Corporate Transparency Act, 31 U.S.C. section 5336, which Congress enacted on January 1, 2021 over a veto override. FinCEN's final reporting rule is published at 31 CFR 1010.380 and takes effect January 1, 2024 for newly formed reporting companies and January 1, 2025 for entities already in existence as of that date. The statute exempts twenty-three categories (regulated financial institutions, public companies, large operating companies with more than twenty employees and five million in U.S. gross receipts, and so on), but a typical close corporation matches none of them. A family farm held in a Delaware close corporation with four siblings as stockholders will file a beneficial-ownership report the same as an LLC sitting in the same fact pattern.

The close corporation used to promise a kind of quiet: a small group of owners running a business without outside directors or public disclosures. The CTA reintroduces that apparatus at the federal level, and in doing so collapses one of the few remaining axes on which an old close corporation might have beaten a new LLC.

What to do with an existing close corporation

The honest answer is usually to leave it alone, or convert on a triggering event. A gratuitous conversion costs legal fees, can create recognition outside the reorganization safe harbors of IRC section 368, and reopens shareholder agreements that everyone has been living with for decades. A conversion at a natural inflection point (a generational handoff, a sale of a minority stake, a recapitalization) is cheaper because the papering is already happening.

If you are forming something new in 2023 and someone suggests a close corporation, ask what it buys you that an LLC does not. The answers most often offered (transfer restrictions, consent provisions, dispensation with a board) are things the LLC has by default or gets through a one-page amendment to the operating agreement. The close corporation's last live advantage, the subchapter XIV formalism, is not worth the cost of the surrounding machinery for almost any business that did not already exist in that form.

Sources

Keep reading

More from the journal.