In Citrin v. International Airport Centers LLC, read opinion here , the Chancery Court granted prejudgment interest on a successful claim for advancement of fees.  The interest was calculated to start ten days after the date of the first demand for expenses incurred, and for later expenses interest would start on the date the expenses were paid.  The court engages in a careful analysis of the reasons for the decision which at least in part were based on the remarkable level of mockery that the corporation employed in its rejection of the demand, without explanation (other than belittling the demand).  The opposition to the grant of prejudgment interest in this context was based on case law indicating that the party against whom prejudgment interest was imposed should have had an opportunity to ascertain the quantifiable amount against which interest would be imposed, but in this case–due to the cavalier attitude of the entity involved, there was no opportunity for the demand to be quantified.

  Also important was a reference in footnote 7 to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit involving the same parties, and which the Chancery Court waited for before rendering its own decision.  That 7th Circuit decision is International Airport Centers LLC v. Citrin, 455 F.3d 749, 751-52 (7th 2006).  The 7th Circuit decision drew somewhat humorous commentary from the court in connection with the 7th Circuit’s predictable decision that:

 Simply because the advancement claim is based on litigation in federal court (or any other foreign jurisdiction) the claimant need not present the advancement claim in that proceeding–as opposed to the well recognized procedure of presenting the advancement claim in a summary proceeding before the Delaware Court of Chancery.