Posted on January 12, 2010 by Francis G.X. Pileggi

Bylaws May Contain Conditions to Grant of Advancements Rights that Supplement Advancement Rights in Charter

Xu Hong Bin v. Heckmann Corp., No. 4802-CC (Del. Ch., January 8, 2010), read letter decision here. The Delaware Court of Chancery previously granted partial summary judgment in favor of Xu on one of the counterclaims by Heckmann. Read summary of that prior decision in this case here. This ten-page... Continue Reading...
Tags: , , , ,
Posted on December 19, 2009 by Francis G.X. Pileggi

Chancery Court Highlights Important Distinctions Between Advancement and Indemnification; Explains Underlying Policy for Both; Grants Advancement for Defense of Counterclaims by Company

Paolino v. Mace Security International, No. 4462-VCL (Del. Ch., revised December 14, 2009), read opinion here. Short Introduction This decision provides an excellent analysis of the policy foundations for, and the important distinctions between, advancement and indemnification rights pursuant to DGCL Section 145. After explaining the important distinctions between advancement... Continue Reading...
Tags: , , ,
Posted on June 21, 2009 by Francis G.X. Pileggi

Chancery Court Modifies Advancement Award Based on Changed Circumstances

Duthie v. CorSolutions Medical, Inc., et al., No. 3048-VCN (Del. Ch., June 16, 2009), read opinion here. A prior Chancery Court decision in this advancement case, which also provides more background facts, has been summarized on this blog here. Overview This Chancery Court decision discusses in detail the conceptual and... Continue Reading...
Tags: ,
Posted on March 31, 2009 by Francis G.X. Pileggi

Tenth Circuit Applies Delaware Law in Advancement Case

Westar Energy, Inc. v. Lake, 552 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2009). See prior post on trial court opinion here. Danielle Blount, an associate in our Delaware office, provided the following case summary. In this decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, the Appellant-Plaintiff Westar Energy, Inc.... Continue Reading...
Tags: ,
Posted on March 2, 2009 by Francis G.X. Pileggi

Chancery Court Denies Full Amount of Advancement Request

Underbrink v. Warrior Energy Servs. Corp., (Del Ch., Feb. 24, 2009), read opinion here. (HT: Delaware Business Litigation Report). A prior ruling is this case can be found at the following citation: Underbrink v. Warrior Energy Servs. Corp., 2008 WL 2262316 (Del. Ch., May 30, 2008)("Memo Opinion"). (As an aside,... Continue Reading...
Tags: ,
Posted on February 26, 2009 by Francis G.X. Pileggi

Chancery Examines Reasonableness of Fees Awarded

In Lillis v. AT & T Corp., (Del. Ch., Feb. 25, 2009), read letter decision here, the Chancery Court reviewed a dispute about the reasonableness of fees that were awarded in an advancement claim as well as related litigation. There have been several Delaware opinions involving these parties in this... Continue Reading...
Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on September 26, 2008 by Francis G.X. Pileggi

Bankruptcy Court in Delaware Rejects Claim for Advancement Under Delaware Law After Claim Removed to Federal Court

Street v. The End of The Road Trust, et al., (D. Del., Bankr., Sept. 17, 2008), read opinion here. Thanks to Delaware lawyer David Finger for bringing this decision to my attention. A quote from the court's opinion highlighted the issues addressed: There are a number of basic propositions in... Continue Reading...
Tags: , , , ,
Posted on August 2, 2008 by Francis G.X. Pileggi

When "Indemnification" Also Refers to "Advancement"

Sodano v. American Stock Exchange LLC, 2008 WL 2738583 (Del. Ch., July 15, 2008), read opinion here. This Chancery Court decision interprets corporate documents and a settlement agreement to determine rights to advancement of legal fees. The court observes that the word “indemnification” as used by the parties in... Continue Reading...
Tags: , , , ,
Posted on April 2, 2008 by Francis G.X. Pileggi

"Fees on Fees" Limited By Proportionality in Advancement Matter; and Chancery Confirms that Advancement Rights May Be Terminated

In Schoon v. Troy Corp., (Del. Ch., March 28, 2008), read opinion here, the Delaware Chancery Court granted advancement rights to one of the plaintiffs, but denied it to the other, based primarily on the wording of the relevant bylaws as construed through the applicable statute and case law. Moreover,... Continue Reading...
Tags: , ,