In the recent post-trial memorandum opinion of Dore v. Sweports, Ltd., C.A. No. 10513-VCL (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 2017), Vice Chancellor Laster addressed indemnification for fees incurred in pursuing affirmative claims brought by an indemnified individual.  The underlying lawsuits giving rise to this indemnification action were substantially premised on the attempts of a

In 2015, the Court of Chancery ruled upon the then novel issue under Delaware law as to what priority level advancement claims should be afforded in a receivership action.  Then Vice Chancellor Parsons held that claims for advancement are not entitled to administrative priority, and instead are considered to be pre-petition, non-priority unsecured claims.  For

In the recent bench ruling entered in Harrison v. Quivus Systems LLC, C.A. 12084-VCMR (April 7, 2016), Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves ruled that discovery into the reasonableness of fees sought in an advancement case will be postponed until after the Court first determines that plaintiff has established a right to advancement.

This is an important

Not uncommonly, a former director or officer of a Delaware corporation will bring a claim for advancement against the company to defend his or herself in a lawsuit arising “by reason of the fact” that he or she was or director of officer, under Section 145 of the DGCL.

Less commonly, however, is an advancement