|
 Kaung v Cole National
Del 2005
- Affirms Chancery's ordering plaintiff to pay
defendant company's lawyer's fees
- Reverses Chancery's ordering plaintiff to repay
sums already advanced
- Kaung v Cole National
Del Ch 2004
- Denied plaintiff advancement of expenses
- Legal fees sought were due to plaintiff's lawyer spending time with an
unqualified non-lawyer consultant
Flynn
v CIBC World Markets Del Ch 2005
- Denies plaintiff's demand for advancement of
legal expenses
- Was an employee of CIHI,
not of its sister company CIBC World Markets Corp,
although both did business as "CIBC World Markets"
- Plaintiff tried to invoke other company's by-law
provision
- Plaintiff was embroiled in late-trading of mutual funds
Scharf
v Edgcomb
Del 2004
- Defendant company tried to invoke three-year statute of limitations to avoid
indemnification
- Held that the plaintiff could not have been sure that
the SEC investigation against him was resolved until 1994
- Plaintiff brought claim for indemnification in 1996
- Reverses Chancery Court decision
Del Ch 3.24.04
Tafeen
v Homestore Del Ch 2004
- To avoid advancement, company claimed plaintiff had "unclean hands"
- But there was no evidence that plaintiff had sheltered assets
to hinder company from collecting on any ultimate obligation to repay
- Decision for plaintiff
- Approves master's report on reasonableness of
plaintiff's request for advancement of attorney's fees
- Company asserted that defendant had "unclean hands" and thus wasn't entitled
to advancement
- Alleged that
plaintiff sheltered assets to hinder any subsequent company recovery
 Weaver v ZeniMax Media
Del Ch 2004
Brooks-McCollum v Emerald Ridge
Del Ch 2004 Fasciana v EDS
Del Ch 2003
Stifel
Financial v Cochran Del 2002
- Muncipal bond banker became embroiled in criminal
charges
- By-law provided for indemnification to the
full extent authorized by law
-
Three-year statute of limitations applied per
10 Del §8106
- Rejects company's argument that officer should
have made a pre-suit demand
- Indemnification for expenses incurred in
successfully prosecuting an indemnification suit against the company are
permissible under § 145(a) -- ("fees on fees")
- But not for the officer's defending against
employment contract-related claims brought by company
(personal not official)
Senior Tour Players
v Golftown Del Ch 2004
- Per operating agreement, LLC's former managers were entitled to
advancement of expenses
- In the absence of any requirement for a written
undertaking for repayment, the court refused to require one
Gentile v SinglePoint Financial
Del 2001
| 
Del 1985
