Tag Archives: DGCL Section 145

Advancement Granted for Post-Termination Use of Confidential Information

The recent Delaware Chancery Court opinion in Ephrat v. medCPU, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0052-MTZ (Del. Ch. June 26, 2019), remains noteworthy for two reasons, notwithstanding the large number of advancement decisions interpreting DGCL Section 145 appearing on these pages over the last 14 years: (1)        It provides an anthology of prior Delaware decisions granting advancement … Continue Reading

Chancery Advancement Ruling Recites Basic Principles and Nuances

Adding to the multitude of Delaware decisions featured on these pages involving the right of corporate directors and officers to advancement of their fees incurred to defend claims against them, pursuant to DGCL Section 145, or by agreement, we offer highlights of Sider v. Hertz Global Holdings, C.A. No. 2019-0237-KSJM, Order (Del. Ch. June 17, 2019), a … Continue Reading

Mid-Year Review of Key Delaware Corporate and Commercial Decisions

Over the last 14 years that I have published this blog, I have compiled an annual review with a list of key Delaware corporate and commercial decisions that have widespread utility to practitioners, especially those court decisions that are not widely covered by other legal publications or the mainstream press. On a few occasions, I have prepared a mid-year … Continue Reading

Indemnification and Advancement Issue of First Impression Decided by Chancery

Hermelin v. K-V Pharmaceutical Company, C.A. No. 6936-VCG (Del. Ch., Feb. 7, 2012). Issues Addressed The Court of Chancery addressed an issue of first impression in Delaware regarding: “what evidence is relevant to an inquiry into whether an indemnitee acted in good faith for the purposes of permissive indemnification” under DGCL §§145(a) and (b). The Court also addressed: (1) Whether … Continue Reading

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 the relevant documents in this case … Continue Reading
LexBlog