Main Menu

Court Of Chancery Explains When Duplication Avoids Advancement Obligation

Pontone v. Milso Industries Corporation, C.A. No. 8842-VCP (August 22, 2014) If a party has 2 possible sources of reimbursement for her fees, may she choose which one to sue?  This decision deals with the case law on when a prior advancement of fees precludes a party from seeking advancement of new fees from a different party.  The short answer is that a party may chose who to seek advancement from when more than 1 source is obligated. The decision is also important for its analysis on when a claim may relate back to the time when the director was still a director, even if the claim also deals with post-directorship acts. That is important because the director is only entitled to advancement for acts related to his role as a director. Finally, the opinion is useful for its discussion on when counterclaims are subject to advancement. For example, a counterclaim for defamation may be subject to advancement. Share


  • US News Best Law Firms
  • JD Supra Readers Choice Award
  • Delaware Today Top Lawyers
  • Super Lawyers
Back to Page