The Delaware Court of Chancery typically holds that a corporation must advance the fees and expenses of an executive or officer-level employee who is required to defend a civil, criminal, administrative or investigative action by virtue of his or her employment with the company. Recently, however, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster held that a plaintiff was not entitled to advancement because he did not prove that someone with the bare title of \u201cVice President,\u201d without any managerial or supervisory responsibilities, fit within the definition of \u201cofficer\u201d found in the relevant bylaws.<\/p>\n
The Court of Chancery\u2019s holding in Aleynikov v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.<\/em>, C.A. No. 10636-VCL (Del. Ch., July 13, 2016) was based, in large part, on its conclusion that it was bound by an incorrect finding by the Third Circuit in a related action because the doctrine of \u201cissue preclusion prevent[ed] relitigation of wrong decisions just as much as right ones.\u201d<\/p>\n To read the full text of the Alert<\/em>, please visit www.duanemorris.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Delaware Court of Chancery typically holds that a corporation must advance the fees and expenses of an executive or officer-level employee who is required to defend a civil, criminal, administrative or investigative action by virtue of his or her employment with the company. Recently, however, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster held that a plaintiff … <\/p>\n