In a rare example of the Court of Chancery denying a a former corporate officer’s advancement claim–after an initial decision granting it–the court changed its prior opinion, after a complaint in the underlying case was amended to limit the underlying claims at issue to post-employment breach of contract claims, and based on that amendment the
DGCL Section 145
On second look, Chancery finds buyer’s revised charge avoids ex-CEO’s advancement claim
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Chancery Court Updates
This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law, and writing about it for various legal publications, for over 30 years.
A recent Court of Chancery opinion reversed an earlier advancement decision in favor of Heartland Payment System LLC ex-CEO Robert Carr after finding buyer Global Payments Inc.’s amended complaint …
Chancery Grants Advancement, Rejects Common Defense
By Francis Pileggi on
For those readers who follow the many Chancery decisions highlighted on these pages regarding advancement for corporate officers and directors, the recent Court of Chancery decision in Nielsen v. EBTH Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0164-MTZ (Del. Ch. Sept. 30, 2019), can be added to the long line of cases that reject an argument that…
Advancement Granted for Post-Termination Use of Confidential Information
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Chancery Court Updates
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…
Chancery Advancement Ruling Recites Basic Principles and Nuances
By Francis Pileggi on
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…
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…
Indemnification and Advancement Issue of First Impression Decided by Chancery
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Chancery Court Updates
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).
When “Indemnification” Also Refers to “Advancement”
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Chancery Court Updates
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…