and directly elected its directors, but were not stockholders of record, had a right of inspection at common law, and, if so, (b) whether that right has survived the enactment of 8 Del.C. § 220. Compare State ex rel. Crowder v. Sperry Corp., 41 Del. 84, 93-94, 15 A.2d 661, 664 (Del.Super.Ct.1940) (holders of voting trust certificates who transferred to voting trustees “all the powers and rights of absolute ownership of every name and nature” did not have a legal right of access enforceable by mandamus), with Fleisher Development Corp. v. Home Owners Warranty Corp., 647 F.Supp. 661, 667 (D.D.C.1986) (predicting that Delaware would recognize common-law right of inspection in owners of non-stock corporation). Cf. Henshaw v. American Cement Corp., 252 A.2d 125, 128 (Del.Ch.1969) (<HOLDING>). (4) The important and urgent reasons for an
holding right to testify was federal constitutional right holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right holding that treatment as a child is not a constitutional right but a right granted by the legislature and statute met basic due process requirements holding that for an act to be inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and thus constitute a waiver of that right it must repudiate the right of the party who does the act holding that a director who was a stockholder of record but had not complied with  220s procedural requirements had a commonlaw right to review books and such right survived the enactment of  220