Chancery Decision Recites Basic Advancement Rules
In Sider, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick rejected the request for interlocutory review, reasoning that the defendant could not establish one of the elements of the interlocutory appeal standard: “that there is no just reason for denying the appeal.”
July 10, 2019 at 09:04 AM
4 minute read
The Delaware Court of Chancery in Sider v. Hertz Global Holdings, C.A. No. 2019-0237-KSJM, Order (Del. Ch. June 17, 2019), recently resolved an issue of first impression for the court: “should a defendant be permitted immediate appellate review of a decision granting entitlement to advancement, although disputes concerning the reasonableness of advancement fees remain unresolved?” In Sider, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick rejected the request for interlocutory review, reasoning that the defendant could not establish one of the elements of the interlocutory appeal standard: “that there is no just reason for denying the appeal.”
To advance the argument that there is no “just reason” for denying an appeal, the defendant in Sider contended that advancement rights encompass significant timing issues, such as the right to payments in advance of the final proceedings that gave rise to the claims. The defendant further argued that it would suffer irreparable harm if it paid what it believed to be unwarranted advancement.
In responding to the defendant's arguments, the court noted that the defendant ignored the unextraordinary nature of the advancement issue before the court, explaining that many litigants share the concern that absent immediate appeal they will pay advancement that they may not be able to recoup later. The court held that granting interlocutory review in such a mundane case would change the nature of interlocutory review from being a procedure that is only employed when there is an “infrequent harsh case,” to being a procedure that is commonly employed.
Ultimately, the court held that there was a sound basis for denying the appeal, namely, that the court will not allow litigants to use Rule 54(b) to flood the Delaware Supreme Court's docket with advancement disputes that commonly arise.
In addition to resolving an issue not previously addressed by the court, the order in Sider is noteworthy because the court recited several key truisms and basic principles of great practical usefulness for practitioners, regarding claims for advancement by former officers and directors who were sued “by reason of the fact” they were acting in their corporate capacity. (See DGCL Section 145.) Bolstered by copious, robust footnotes, the order makes two momentous points.
First, the abundant case law interpreting the operative phrase “by reason of fact” is well-settled under Delaware law for determining whether advancement is available for an executive who was acting in a corporate capacity. This serves as a practical cautionary notice for advocates trying to make new law on this issue. Second, the Fitracks procedure is now followed by all members of the Court of Chancery. This provides in detail a monthly procedure for counsel to follow to resolve issues about the reasonableness of the amount of monthly bills submitted pursuant to an order to pay advancement—when an amount has not been determined or the exact amount of fees payable is disputed.
Although this decision comes in the form of an order and not a formal opinion, regular readers are aware that the Court of Chancery permits practitioners to cite to orders and transcript rulings in their briefs.
Francis G.X. Pileggi is a litigation partner and vice chair of the commercial litigation practice group at Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. His email address is [email protected]. He comments on key corporate and commercial decisions, and legal ethics rulings, at www.delawarelitigation.com.
Chauna A. Abner is an associate with the firm.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChancery Stays Action Pending Resolution of a Motion to Dismiss in a First-Filed Action to Which the Defendant Is Not a Party
5 minute readChancery Court Exercises Discretion in Setting Bond in a Case Involving Share Transfer Restriction
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250