COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS WRIGHT LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER MAGISTRATE IN CHANCERY 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DE 19801-3734
Date Submitted: February 17, 2026 Date Decided: April 14, 2026
Shant Hamassian Matthew W. Murphy, Esquire 24033 Park Granada Benjamin O. Allen, Esquire Calabasas, CA 91302 Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. 820 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Shant Hamassian v. Cineverse Corp., C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW
Dear Litigant and Counsel:
Plaintiff Shant Hamassian demands inspection of certain books and
records of defendant Cineverse Corp. under Section 220 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law. Cineverse objects on several grounds, including that
Hamassian has failed to state a proper purpose for his inspection. After
carefully considering the evidence and arguments the parties presented, I agree
with Cineverse that Hamassian has failed to prove he has a proper purpose for
his inspection. Specifically, I find by a preponderance of the evidence that
Hamassian’s purpose for inspection is to advance his personal interests under
contracts with Cineverse, not his interests as a Cineverse stockholder. I
recommend that Hamassian’s inspection demands be denied. C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 2 of 14
I. BACKGROUND The parties consented to trial on a paper record without argument, so
these are the facts as I find them based on the complaint,1 the answer,2 the
parties’ pretrial briefs,3 and exhibits attached to the pleadings and briefs.
A. The Parties
Hamassian is a filmmaker and the director of two films: A Really Nice
Guy and Night of the Slasher.4 In 2020, Hamassian entered into two
distribution agreements for his films with Bloody Disgusting, LLC (“BD”), a
privately held company in the business of streaming digital media.5 Cineverse
is a publicly traded Delaware corporation in that is also engaged in the business
of streaming digital media.6 Cineverse acquired BD in October 2021 and, with
it, BD’s rights and obligations under the distribution agreements.7
1 Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”).
2 Dkt. 33 (“Ans.”).
3 Pl.’s Opening Pre-Trial Br., Dkt. 36 (“Opening Br.”); Def.’s Answering Pre-Trial
Br., Dkt. 37 (“Answering Br.”); Pl.’s Reply Pre-Trial Br., Dkt. 39 (“Reply Br.”). 4 Compl. Ex. D-3; Answering Br. 8; see Answering Br. Exs. A–B.
5 Answering Br. 7; see Answering Br. Ex. A (first distribution agreement), Ex. B
(second distribution agreement). 6 Ans. ¶ 7; Answering Br. 7.
7 Answering Br. 7.
-2- C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 3 of 14
B. BD Agrees to Distribute Hamassian’s Films
On October 13, 2020, Hamassian and BD executed the first distribution
agreement.8 The first agreement granted BD the right to distribute and
sublicense A Really Nice Guy.9 On December 6, Hamassian and BD executed
the second distribution agreement (together, “Distribution Agreements”).10
Under the Distribution Agreements, BD would pay Hamassian a percentage of
the proceeds generated from his films and would provide Hamassian quarterly
accountings.11
C. Cineverse Acquires BD and Hamassian’s Royalties Are Lost in the Transition
In October 2021, Cineverse acquired BD.12 What followed was a
20-month transition period as Cineverse integrated BD into its business.13 The
transition implemented new operating procedures at BD that impacted the
timeliness of Hamassian’s royalty payments and accountings.14
8 Answering Br. Ex. A.
9 Id. § 1.1.
10 Answering Br. Ex. B § 1.1.
11 Answering Br. Ex. A §§ 3–4; Answering Br. Ex. B §§ 3–4.
12 Answering Br. 9.
13 See Opening Br. 7; Answering Br. 8–9.
14 See Compl. Ex. D at 2 (“the switchover has also created a lot of bumps in the
processing of paperwork . . . .”).
-3- C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 4 of 14
On June 4, 2023, Cineverse emailed certain filmmakers to share how the
acquisition would impact their licensing agreements and renewals.15
Hamassian responded and the parties traded emails on Hamassian’s royalty
payments and renewing the Distribution Agreements through October 4,
2024.16
D. Hamassian Serves the First of Four Demands for Books and Records
On February 7, 2025, Hamassian sent Cineverse his first demand to
inspect books and records under Section 220 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law (“First Demand”).17 The First Demand sought six categories
of books and records for three purposes: (1) investigating mismanagement; (2)
investigating “financial irregularities[;]” and (3) investigating possible breaches
of fiduciary duties “related to [BD]’s licensing and revenue reporting
practices.”18 Hamassian stated his investigatory purposes were proper because
Cineverse “failed to send the 16 required quarterly revenue and profit
statements regarding [Hamassian’s] licensed short film . . . in violation of
15 Id.
16 See id. at 2–9.
17 Answering Br. Ex. C (“First Demand”). See also Opening Br. 6; Answering Br. 9.
18 First Demand 1.
-4- C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 5 of 14
[their] agreement” and that Cineverse “has cited ongoing ‘accounting issues’
. . . as the reason for non-compliance.”19
The First Demand also alleged that Binge Society Dark, to whom
Cineverse sublicensed the rights to Night of the Slasher, had “improperly
altered” the film and misattributed ownership of its copyright.20 As Hamassian
reasoned, these indicated Cineverse “fail[ed] to oversee sublicensed content”
and that the alleged copyright misattribution “expos[ed] Cineverse to
unnecessary legal and financial risk.”21
The First Demand was mailed with two attachments. The first
attachment was a document titled “Affirmation of Proper Purpose” with a
notarized jurat.22 The second was a transaction receipt indicating Hamassian
purchased one share of Cineverse stock 22 days earlier via the online brokerage
platform Robinhood.23
19 Id.
20 Id.1–2.
21 Id.
22 Id. 3–4.
23 Id. 5–6.
-5- C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 6 of 14
E. Hamassian Sends His Second and Third Demands in Rapid Succession
On February 24, Hamassian sent Cineverse a second letter demanding to
inspect its books and records (“Second Demand”).24 The Second Demand
listed the same purposes for which Hamassian sought to inspect documents as
the First Demand and recited the same allegations of wrongdoing.25 But the
Second Demand omitted the records Hamassian wished to inspect, proof of his
stock ownership, and evidence the Second Demand was made under oath.26
On March 18, Hamassian sent a third letter demanding Cineverse permit
him to inspect five categories of its books and records (“Third Demand”).27
Much like the First Demand, the Third Demand only sought documents related
to Night of the Slasher.28 Like the previous two demands, the Third Demand
largely recycled Hamassian’s allegations about Cineverse’s conduct and his
proper purposes.29 And, like the Second Demand, no sworn statement or proof
24 Answering Br. Ex. D. (“Second Demand”); Answering Br. 11; see Opening Br. 6.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS WRIGHT LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER MAGISTRATE IN CHANCERY 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DE 19801-3734
Date Submitted: February 17, 2026 Date Decided: April 14, 2026
Shant Hamassian Matthew W. Murphy, Esquire 24033 Park Granada Benjamin O. Allen, Esquire Calabasas, CA 91302 Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. 820 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Shant Hamassian v. Cineverse Corp., C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW
Dear Litigant and Counsel:
Plaintiff Shant Hamassian demands inspection of certain books and
records of defendant Cineverse Corp. under Section 220 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law. Cineverse objects on several grounds, including that
Hamassian has failed to state a proper purpose for his inspection. After
carefully considering the evidence and arguments the parties presented, I agree
with Cineverse that Hamassian has failed to prove he has a proper purpose for
his inspection. Specifically, I find by a preponderance of the evidence that
Hamassian’s purpose for inspection is to advance his personal interests under
contracts with Cineverse, not his interests as a Cineverse stockholder. I
recommend that Hamassian’s inspection demands be denied. C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 2 of 14
I. BACKGROUND The parties consented to trial on a paper record without argument, so
these are the facts as I find them based on the complaint,1 the answer,2 the
parties’ pretrial briefs,3 and exhibits attached to the pleadings and briefs.
A. The Parties
Hamassian is a filmmaker and the director of two films: A Really Nice
Guy and Night of the Slasher.4 In 2020, Hamassian entered into two
distribution agreements for his films with Bloody Disgusting, LLC (“BD”), a
privately held company in the business of streaming digital media.5 Cineverse
is a publicly traded Delaware corporation in that is also engaged in the business
of streaming digital media.6 Cineverse acquired BD in October 2021 and, with
it, BD’s rights and obligations under the distribution agreements.7
1 Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”).
2 Dkt. 33 (“Ans.”).
3 Pl.’s Opening Pre-Trial Br., Dkt. 36 (“Opening Br.”); Def.’s Answering Pre-Trial
Br., Dkt. 37 (“Answering Br.”); Pl.’s Reply Pre-Trial Br., Dkt. 39 (“Reply Br.”). 4 Compl. Ex. D-3; Answering Br. 8; see Answering Br. Exs. A–B.
5 Answering Br. 7; see Answering Br. Ex. A (first distribution agreement), Ex. B
(second distribution agreement). 6 Ans. ¶ 7; Answering Br. 7.
7 Answering Br. 7.
-2- C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 3 of 14
B. BD Agrees to Distribute Hamassian’s Films
On October 13, 2020, Hamassian and BD executed the first distribution
agreement.8 The first agreement granted BD the right to distribute and
sublicense A Really Nice Guy.9 On December 6, Hamassian and BD executed
the second distribution agreement (together, “Distribution Agreements”).10
Under the Distribution Agreements, BD would pay Hamassian a percentage of
the proceeds generated from his films and would provide Hamassian quarterly
accountings.11
C. Cineverse Acquires BD and Hamassian’s Royalties Are Lost in the Transition
In October 2021, Cineverse acquired BD.12 What followed was a
20-month transition period as Cineverse integrated BD into its business.13 The
transition implemented new operating procedures at BD that impacted the
timeliness of Hamassian’s royalty payments and accountings.14
8 Answering Br. Ex. A.
9 Id. § 1.1.
10 Answering Br. Ex. B § 1.1.
11 Answering Br. Ex. A §§ 3–4; Answering Br. Ex. B §§ 3–4.
12 Answering Br. 9.
13 See Opening Br. 7; Answering Br. 8–9.
14 See Compl. Ex. D at 2 (“the switchover has also created a lot of bumps in the
processing of paperwork . . . .”).
-3- C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 4 of 14
On June 4, 2023, Cineverse emailed certain filmmakers to share how the
acquisition would impact their licensing agreements and renewals.15
Hamassian responded and the parties traded emails on Hamassian’s royalty
payments and renewing the Distribution Agreements through October 4,
2024.16
D. Hamassian Serves the First of Four Demands for Books and Records
On February 7, 2025, Hamassian sent Cineverse his first demand to
inspect books and records under Section 220 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law (“First Demand”).17 The First Demand sought six categories
of books and records for three purposes: (1) investigating mismanagement; (2)
investigating “financial irregularities[;]” and (3) investigating possible breaches
of fiduciary duties “related to [BD]’s licensing and revenue reporting
practices.”18 Hamassian stated his investigatory purposes were proper because
Cineverse “failed to send the 16 required quarterly revenue and profit
statements regarding [Hamassian’s] licensed short film . . . in violation of
15 Id.
16 See id. at 2–9.
17 Answering Br. Ex. C (“First Demand”). See also Opening Br. 6; Answering Br. 9.
18 First Demand 1.
-4- C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 5 of 14
[their] agreement” and that Cineverse “has cited ongoing ‘accounting issues’
. . . as the reason for non-compliance.”19
The First Demand also alleged that Binge Society Dark, to whom
Cineverse sublicensed the rights to Night of the Slasher, had “improperly
altered” the film and misattributed ownership of its copyright.20 As Hamassian
reasoned, these indicated Cineverse “fail[ed] to oversee sublicensed content”
and that the alleged copyright misattribution “expos[ed] Cineverse to
unnecessary legal and financial risk.”21
The First Demand was mailed with two attachments. The first
attachment was a document titled “Affirmation of Proper Purpose” with a
notarized jurat.22 The second was a transaction receipt indicating Hamassian
purchased one share of Cineverse stock 22 days earlier via the online brokerage
platform Robinhood.23
19 Id.
20 Id.1–2.
21 Id.
22 Id. 3–4.
23 Id. 5–6.
-5- C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 6 of 14
E. Hamassian Sends His Second and Third Demands in Rapid Succession
On February 24, Hamassian sent Cineverse a second letter demanding to
inspect its books and records (“Second Demand”).24 The Second Demand
listed the same purposes for which Hamassian sought to inspect documents as
the First Demand and recited the same allegations of wrongdoing.25 But the
Second Demand omitted the records Hamassian wished to inspect, proof of his
stock ownership, and evidence the Second Demand was made under oath.26
On March 18, Hamassian sent a third letter demanding Cineverse permit
him to inspect five categories of its books and records (“Third Demand”).27
Much like the First Demand, the Third Demand only sought documents related
to Night of the Slasher.28 Like the previous two demands, the Third Demand
largely recycled Hamassian’s allegations about Cineverse’s conduct and his
proper purposes.29 And, like the Second Demand, no sworn statement or proof
24 Answering Br. Ex. D. (“Second Demand”); Answering Br. 11; see Opening Br. 6.
A “jurat” is “[a] certification added to an affidavit or deposition stating when and before what authority the affidavit or deposition was made.” Jurat, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024). 25 Compare Second Demand, with First Demand.
26 Contrast Second Demand, with First Demand.
27 Answering Br. Ex. E. (“Third Demand”); Answering Br. 13; see Opening Br. 6.
28 Compare Third Demand, with First Demand.
29 Compare Third Demand, with Second Demand, and First Demand.
-6- C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 7 of 14
of stock ownership accompanied the Third Demand. But in the Third Demand
Hamassian alleged a new basis to suspect mismanagement: Cineverse’s alleged
unauthorized use of Night of the Slasher following the Distribution
Agreements’ expiration in September 2024.30
F. Hamassian Sends His Fourth and Final Demand
On April 2, Hamassian sent a fourth letter demanding to inspect five
categories of Cineverse’s books and records (“Fourth Demand” and,
collectively with the First, Second and Third Demands, “Demands”).31 The
Fourth Demand omitted any mention of Hamassian’s purpose for seeking the
requested records. Rather, Hamassian recanted a litany of facts to conclude that
Cineverse willfully violated Delaware law, and its practices constituted “gross
financial mismanagement and potential accounting fraud.”32
Hamassian claimed Cineverse failed to produce quarterly accountings as
required by the Distribution Agreements, which “represent[s] at least 16
separate breaches of contract.”33 The Fourth Demand also repeated
30 Third Demand 2.
31 Answering Br. Ex. F. (“Fourth Demand”) 1, 4.
32 Fourth Demand 2–4.
33 Id. 3.
-7- C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 8 of 14
Hamassian’s allegations about copyright misattribution and Cineverse’s
unauthorized use of his films after the Distribution Agreements expired.34
Hamassian appended seven pages of attachments to the Fourth Demand,
including the same transaction receipt attached to the First Demand35 and a
signed and notarized affidavit.36
On May 9, Cineverse sent Hamassian a letter declining to produce its
books and records.37 Cineverse concluded that Hamassian’s purpose was to
vindicate his rights—not one related to his interest as a stockholder. Cineverse
informed Hamassian of its position that he “may not use Section 220 for
individual purposes” or “to investigate personal contractual and copyright
claims”38 and that, regardless, the Demands “fail[ed] to comply with Section
220[.]”39 The parties corresponded about resolving Hamassian’s concerns, but
were ultimately unable to come to a resolution.40
34 Compare Fourth Demand, with First Demand, and Second Demand, and Third
Demand. 35 Compare Fourth Demand 9–10, with First Demand 5–6.
36 Fourth Demand 7.
37 Compl. Ex. C-1; Answering Br. 16.
38 Compl. Ex. C-1 at 4.
39 Id. 6.
40 Answering Br. 16–17; Compl. Ex. C-2;
-8- C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 9 of 14
II. PROCEDURAL POSTURE On December 11, Hamassian filed the Complaint, seeking to inspect the
books and records identified in all of the Demands.41 On December 24,
Hamassian filed a Motion to Establish Schedule with a proposed scheduling
order.42 On December 30, the court held the motion in abeyance until
Cineverse was served with the Complaint.43 Cineverse’s counsel entered their
appearance less than 20 minutes later.44
On January 12, 2026, Cineverse sent a letter informing the court that the
parties could not agree on a case schedule and provided their proposed
scheduling order. The court granted Cineverse’s proposed case schedule and
denied Hamassian’s the next day.45
On January 20, Cineverse answered the Complaint.46 On February 2,
Hamassian filed his opening brief.47 On February 11, Cineverse filed its
answering brief.48 On February 16, Hamassian filed his reply brief.49
41 Dkts. 1, 5–21.
42 Dkt. 26.
43 Dkt. 27.
44 Dkt. 28.
45 Dkts. 30–31.
46 Dkt. 33.
47 Dkt. 36.
48 Dkt. 37.
-9- C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 10 of 14
The court held a pretrial conference on February 17.50 At the pretrial
conference the parties stipulated to a ruling on the paper record without trial.51
The court took the matter under advisement on that date.
III. ANALYSIS “Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law provides a
‘qualified’ right for stockholders to inspect corporate books and records.”
Scarantino v. Trade Desk, Inc., 2025 WL 3496644, at *3 (Del. Ch. Dec. 5,
2025) (quoting Seinfeld v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 909 A.2d 117, 119 (Del.
2006)). Among other things, Section 220(b) requires all demands to inspect a
corporation’s books and records be “made in good faith and for a proper
purpose” and that “[t]he books and records sought [in the demands] are
specifically related to the stockholder’s purpose.” 8 Del. C. § 220(b)(2)a., c.
“The paramount factor in determining whether a stockholder is entitled
to inspection of corporate books and records is the propriety of the
stockholder’s purpose in seeking such inspection.” CM & M Gp., Inc. v.
Carroll, 453 A.2d 788, 792 (Del. 1982). A proper purpose is “a purpose
reasonably related to a stockholder’s interest as a stockholder.” 8 Del. C.
49 Dkt. 39.
50 Dkt. 40.
51 Id.
- 10 - C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 11 of 14
§ 220(a)(2). While “[t]here is no shortage of proper purposes under Delaware
law,”52 “the [stockholder’s] purpose must be something that stockholders
would be interested in because of their position as stockholders.” Lynn v.
EnviroSource, Inc., 1991 WL 80242, at *2 (Del. Ch. May 13, 1991). “A purely
individual purpose . . . is not a proper purpose within the meaning of” Section
220. Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Leviton Mfg. Co., 681 A.2d 1026, 1033 (Del.
1996). “Merely stating that one has a proper purpose . . . is necessarily
insufficient.” Melzer, 934 A.2d at 917. Hamassian thus bears the initial burden
of proving he possesses a proper purpose for the inspection by a preponderance
of the evidence. 8 Del. C. § 220(c).53
Hamassian argues he seeks to investigate mismanagement and
wrongdoing at Cineverse, specifically “to evaluate whether Cineverse
maintained corporate oversight and internal controls relating to royalty
reporting/payment workflows, license-term tracking, and associated compliance
and escalation practices[.]”54 He contends that the Demands are directed at
“corporate governance and oversight” not “bilateral contractual obligations
52 E.g., Melzer v. CNET Networks, Inc., 934 A.2d 912, 917 (Del. Ch. 2007).
53 See, e.g., Peneff Hldgs. LLC v. Nurture Life, Inc., 2024 WL 3964006, at *4 (Del.
Ch. Aug. 28, 2024) (applying the same standard when interpreting the previous version of Section 220). 54 Opening Br. 14.
- 11 - C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 12 of 14
between Cineverse” and himself.55 Hamassian also argues that having “[m]ixed
motives” does not discredit his other purposes.56 Cineverse, for its part, argues
that the Demands identify no purpose for inspection relating to Hamassian’s
status as a Cineverse stockholder, but instead make it clear Hamassian is only
seeking “to investigate potential personal claims for breach of contract and
copyright infringement” arising out of or relating to the Distribution
Agreements57 Cineverse is correct.
“When a corporation has reason to believe the stockholder plaintiff has
advanced a purpose that does not reflect its true purpose, the corporation
‘[u]nquestionably is entitled to challenge the plaintiff’s stated purpose and to
show that as a factual matter, the plaintiff’s true purpose is other than what is
stated in the demand.’” Georgia Notes 18, LLC v. Net Element, Inc., 2021 WL
5368651, at *3 (Del. Ch. Nov. 18, 2021) (citing authorities). The test for
determining whether a claim is reasonably related to one’s interest as a
stockholder is straightforward: if the stockholder were divested of their stock,
55 Id.
56 Id. 16.
57 Answering Br. 21.
- 12 - C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 13 of 14
would their interest in the books and records they seek be diminished?
EnviroSource, 1991 WL 80242, at *3.58 Here, the answer is clearly no.
Throughout the Demands, Hamassian only alleges wrongdoing and seeks
records related to his rights under the Distribution Agreements and personal
copyright claims stemming from his films.59 Other evidence supports this. In
his responses to Cineverse’s interrogatories, Hamassian admitted that he
“requested information regarding accounting/revenue and related matters” in or
around June 2023—18 months before he became a Cineverse stockholder.60
The fact that Hamassian sought the same information he seeks in this litigation
before he became a stockholder shows his interest is not one “any other
stockholders would share[.]” Deephaven Risk Arb. Trading Ltd. v.
UnitedGlobalCom, Inc., 2004 WL 1945546, at *7 (Del. Ch. Aug. 30, 2004).
Hamassian’s investigatory purpose arises only from his contractual relationship
with Cineverse under the Distribution Agreements, not his interest as a
Cineverse stockholder. “Section 220 is not a tool available to advance non-
stockholder interests[.]” Net Element, 2021 WL 5368651, at *4. Hamassian
58 Accord Net Element, 2021 WL 5368651, at *4 (denying an inspection where the
stockholder sought records “to enhance his claim as a creditor”). 59 See generally First Demand, Second Demand, Third Demand, Fourth Demand.
60 See Interrog. No. 8, Answering Br. Ex. G.
- 13 - C.A. No. 2025-1437-CDW April 14, 2026 Page 14 of 14
thus does not have a proper purpose for the inspection, so I decline to order
Cineverse to produce books and records.
IV. CONCLUSION Hamassian does not have a proper purpose for his demands for
Cineverse’s books and records. I recommend inspection be denied on that
basis. I do not reach Cineverse’s arguments that (1) the Demands fail to satisfy
Section 220’s form-and-manner requirements and (2) Hamassian has failed to
prove the documents he seeks are necessary and essential to a properly stated
purpose.
This is a Final Report under Court of Chancery Rule 144(b)(2). Under
Court of Chancery Rule 144(d)(1), any party who wishes to file exceptions to
this report must file their notice of exceptions by April 17, 2026.
Very truly yours, /s/ Christian Douglas Wright Magistrate in Chancery
- 14 -