"…it may be said that the owners of control are under a duty not to transfer it to outsiders if the circumstances surrounding the proposed transfer are such as to awaken suspicion and put a prudent man on his guard -- unless a reasonably adequate investigation discloses such facts as would convince a reasonable person that no fraud is intended or likely to result." (Insuranshares Corp. of Delaware v. Northern Fiscal Corp., 35 F. Supp. 22, 25 (E.D Pa., 1940)) (Insuransharesלהלן: ).
131. בחלק מהמדינות בארצות הברית פורשה פסיקה זו בצמצום, ואף נקבע כלל לפיו אין להטיל אחריות על המוכר כל עוד לא הוכח כי ידע בפועל שבכוונת הקונה לבצע הונאה (ראו: Levy v. American Beverage Corp. 38 N.Y.S.2d 517, 527 (App. Div. 1942); Jens Dammann, The Controlling Shareholder's General Duty of Care: A Dogma that Should Be Abandoned, 2015(2) U. ILL. L. REV. 479, 492 (2015)). ואולם, במדינת דלאוור שב ואושר הכלל שנקבע בעניין Insuranshares, ואף הוחלה חובת זהירות על בעלי שליטה במכירת מניותיהם מתוקף דיני הנזיקין הכלליים:
"Thus, the reason that a duty of care is recognized in any situation is fully present in this situation. I can find no universal privilege arising from the corporate form that exempts a controlling shareholder who sells corporate control from the wholesome reach of this common-law duty…" (Harris v. Carter, 582 A.2d 222, 234 (Del. Ch. 1990)).
132. הפסיקה מהשנים האחרונות המשיכה באותה מגמה (ראו למשל: Abraham v. Emerson Radio Corp., 901 A.2d 751 (Del. Ch 2006)) ; Zohar Goshen and
--- סוף עמוד 66 ---
Asaf Hamdani, Corporate Control and Idiosyncratic Vision, 125 YALE L. J. 560, 602-605 (2016)), ולצד זאת הוסיפה כלל אחריות המבהיר באילו מקרים יישא אדם באחריות למכירה חובלת ל"בוזז הידוע" ("the known looter"):
"To state a claim under the 'known looter' doctrine, a complaint must allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that the seller (i) knew the buyer was a looter or (ii) was aware of circumstances that would 'alert a reasonably prudent person to a risk that his buyer [was] dishonest or in some material respect not truthful.' Harris, 582 A.2d at 235; accord Abraham, 901 A.2d at 758. The complaint also must allege that the buyer subsequently looted the corporation, thereby inflicting injury. Abraham, 901 A.2d at 758. If the feared or threatened looting never occurred, then there is no harm to remedy and no ripe claim to address." (Ford v. VMware Inc., No. 11714–VCL, 2017 Del. Ch. Lexis 70, at *28 (Del. Ch. 2017)).