ARTICLE
31 January 2024

Chancery Denies Advancement For Director Suspected Of Leaking Confidential Financial Information

MJ
Morris James LLP

Contributor

Morris James LLP logo
Morris James is a leading provider of sophisticated legal services with 70 lawyers located in six offices throughout Delaware. We are a full service firm helping Delaware corporations, businesses and private clients address complex legal concerns. Our clients-first philosophy, multi-disciplinary approach and collective experience earn us high regard from clients, peers and the business community
A company's board of directors suspected one of its members had leaked the company's financial information to a third party and that the third party used the information to obtain...
United States Delaware Corporate/Commercial Law

Hoffman v. First Wave BioPharma, Inc., C.A. No. 2023-0097-MTZ (Del. Ch. September 27, 2023)
A company's board of directors suspected one of its members had leaked the company's financial information to a third party and that the third party used the information to obtain a more favorable settlement with the company. In response, the board formed a board committee for discussion of confidential matters consisting of all directors other than the one suspected of having leaked information. The excluded director engaged an attorney to contest the formation of the board committee and filed an action for the advancement of his legal fees. He relied on an indemnification agreement that granted him a mandatory advancement right for fees incurred by reason of his corporate status in connection with a covered proceeding; he argued that the directors must have investigated his conduct if they had reached a conclusion that he had leaked information and that an investigation was a covered proceeding.

In this post-trial decision, the Court of Chancery determined plaintiff was not entitled to advancement. The Court found no documentary or testamentary evidence that a covered proceeding had occurred. The Court next found plaintiff had not adequately pled an alternative claim for advancement. At first cursorily in his pre-trial brief, and then more fully at trial, the plaintiff developed an alternative theory that the company had "threatened" to investigate him and that under the indemnification agreement, a threatened proceeding was a covered proceeding. The Court determined this late-arising theory did not provide the defendant with fair notice of an intent to litigate a claim based on a threatened proceeding, and that in any event plaintiff had failed to move to amend his complaint at or after trial to include such a claim. Accordingly, the Court ruled in favor of the defendant company.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More